The Energy Bubble is Clearly Unsustainable

by Owen Martin

The Energy Regulator has reported that there is currently a backlog of 36,000MW of renewable and conventional generation connection applications (See above graph). This would increase the current capacity of 10,500MW to a staggering 46,500MW if all of these applications were accepted. As the regulator points out we only have an electricity demand for about 7,000MW. 

Under normal circumstances, only capacity that replaced existing capacity or was required to meet additional demand or reserve requirements would be accepted. Now, because of the rush to meet EU targets, thousands of megawatts of inefficient and intermittent renewable generation are being added. Renewable generation, mostly wind and solar, make up about 70% of the planned generation figure. 

This will lead to a low capacity factor across the board, with all generators operating inefficiently and intermittently. As this blog reported recently, many wind farm companies are making losses. As more generation is added, the market share for all generators will be eroded and we will see more loss making generators. Which will require yet more government intervention to keep the lights on (and possibly another NAMA to be set up).

And it gets worse. The Grid will require a large upgrade as most of these solar and wind farms will be in remote and dispersed regions far away from centres of demand. The costs will simply keep rising exponentially. 

In particular, the CRU notes that the existing backlog of connection applications amounting to 36,000MW is already significantly in excess of the all-island total electricity requirement. Keeping the non-GPA process open to further applications during the consultation period would only increase this volume. This would potentially add to consumer costs with no discernible benefit. 

 For example, with this much renewable generation, it will become increasingly difficult to stabilize and manage the grid frequency. That is why more conventional generation is required to maintain stability and of course this adds to the costs. The Regulator refers to these generators as DS3 providers and has proposed giving them priority over renewable generation :

DS3 system services are required by the system in order to accommodate increasing volumes of non-synchronous renewable generation. The CRU decided in CER/16/284 that providers of those services will be prioritised for a connection offer under the non-GPA process, and requested the system operators to develop a process for this prioritisation. 

The regulator also plans on suspending some of the renewable generation which would of course be a wise decision and be in the interests of all consumers.  Naturally, the renewable lobby groups are not happy and have somehow managed to spin this as a decision that will "result in higher electricity prices." It's difficult to understand why they are lobbying for more supply in an already over-saturated market which will erode the market share of existing renewable generators. 

The energy regulator should stick to the facts and figures as presented in her document. That way she can defend her actions later. It could be the first time an energy regulator has stood up to the green lobby and protected consumer's rights. The Energy Bubble is clearly unsustainable. I for one am hoping that for the first time in recent Irish history, an Irish regulator does the right thing before it's too late.

Green Economics Brings Down Government

Green Party Northern Ireland manifesto for 2016 election

I always knew Green policies were bad because of, among other things the underlying economics, but I never thought I'd see the day when they would bring down a government assembly like it has in Northern Ireland. I blogged about the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme (known as Cash for Ash) before here. For every £1.00 spent on wood pellets, a participant in the scheme got paid £1.60. It didn't dawn on the people in charge that this was an invitation to burn as much wood as possible, effectively leading to the government burning it's own money. And lots of it. 

The cost of this outrageous scheme is estimated to be over £1 billion over the next 20 years. A huge sum for Northern Ireland which relies on a £10 billion block grant from England every year and runs a fiscal deficit of about £ 9 billion. Now there are claims that whisteblowers were ignored and pressure exerted by officials to keep the scheme going. 

You didn't need to be a trained economist to know the scheme couldn't work. Although the Green Party only has 2 seats in the assembly, there is a strong green ethos in the ruling party, the DUP. Their leader, Arlene Foster, took much of the blame and responsibility for the design of the scheme.

I could find no mention of renewables or green energy in the Sinn Fein (the second largest party) manifesto for 2016. It appears it was taken off the agenda in favor of their "Green Paper on Irish Unity".  Their leader, Martin McGuinness who was the Deputy First Minister, resigned last week over the matter forcing another election. 

Hopefully there is a lesson in all this - green policies and green economics are mostly for the scrapheap. The only people they benefit are the very rich in society.

The Big State

Eamon Ryan, the Green Party leader, thinks the State is not doing enough about climate change and not borrowing enough money from the European Investment bank :

The end game for the Greens and the Left is a bloated state, high taxes and debt enslavement for future generations. The irony is that if the Greens wanted to stop climate change the first thing they would do is call for an end to budget deficits and governments spending beyond it's means. After all, this would meet the definition of sustainability according to the Brundtland Commission :

Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.

More on the Energy Bubble

Figure 1: How generating capacity has increased since 2006. East West Interconnector included in 2013 and 2014, also Great Island CCGT included in 2014 and retired oil plant on same site taken out


The above graph, Figure 1, shows the levels of electricity generation capacity for the Republic of Ireland at the end of 2014. We are now approaching the 10 GW mark, the highest ever in the State. If you really want to know why your electricity bills are so high then you only need to look no further than the above graph. All the above power stations and wind farms have to be financed through our bills, even though we only use on average less than a third, and at peak times less than half, of this capacity in electricity. The key to understanding this graph is looking at the gap between the blue (average demand) and black line (total capacity including wind) and the red (peak demand) and black line in 2006 and then comparing this gap with the current gap in 2014 (See Figure 2). As you can see, it has gone out of control. Consider that back in 2006, when the economy was booming, there were no blackouts . The level of back up capacity was sufficient but now that we have over 2GW of wind, it appears that more back up capacity is required to maintain a stable and reliable system.

	2006	2014
Total Capacity / Average Demand	2.0 times	3.2 times
Total Capacity / Peak Demand	1.3 times	2.0 times

Figure 2: Total Capacity is now over 3 times that of average demand and double that of peak demand

There is an argument put forward by the Greens that this excess capacity will be required when everyone switches over to electric cars and electric heating systems as this will lead to a surge in average and peak demand. But there is a major flaw in this argument. You would still need enough dispatchable plant (i.e. plant that can be switched on and off at the touch of a button rather than when the wind blows) at least equal to the peak demand under this scenario, no matter how many wind farms there are. Otherwise, what would everyone do on a calm day like the 11th October 2014 ? Cycle the 10 or 20 miles or more to work ? Or perhaps wear extra woolly jumpers ? So you would still need to build more power stations to cover the surge in demand under this scenario and wind turbines would still result in excess capacity just like in the above graph.

Fuel Mix 2013 - another historic milestone

Figure 3: Fuel Mix 2013 with UK imports broken down into original fuel sources

Figure 3 shows that in 2013, Ireland used nuclear power for the first time. 2% of the electrons going into your electric socket in 2013 came from nuclear stations in the UK. I have broken down the power consumed here through UK imports into their energy sources and added that to the fuel mix provided by SEAI to arrive at the above chart. UK coal power accounted for 40% of our imports with gas at 25% and nuclear at 21%. The 10GW or so of UK wind provided just 6% of imports. So we are still very reliant on gas and coal power - almost 70% of the electrons entering your home in 2013 came from gas and coal power. (not including spinning reserves or back up generation)

But when we look at SEAI's original chart it tells an interesting story :

Figure 4: SEAI Fuel Mix 2013

While on the face of it, wind power did well, one has to put the output of a generator in the context of its generating capacity. The following table (Figure 5) shows the share of generating capacity each energy source had in 2013, so for example, gas plants made up 44% of the entire power plant and wind farm fleet in 2013.

Ireland's Power Generation Mix	2013
Gas	44%
Wind	20%
Coal	9.5%
Peat	4%
Interconnection	5.5%
Oil	12%
Hydro	2%
Pumped	3%

Figure 5: Generating mix 2013

Definitions used :

Grid Acceptance Rate (GAR): the rate at which when power becomes available from a generating source that it is accepted by the grid. So wind power has a grid acceptance rate of 1:1 because it has priority dispatch, meaning when wind power is available it is automatically taken by the grid. Gas has a GAR of between 1:0.8 - 0.9 because when wind becomes available it pushes gas off the grid. I will assume 1:0.85 for this analysis. Coal and Peat are assumed to have a GAR of 1:0.95 as they are occasionally pushed off by wind

Fuel / Capacity Ratio : the position of a fuel source in the fuel mix relative to its position in the generating capacity mix. So a fuel source that makes up 50% of the capacity and 50% of the fuel mix will have a fuel / capacity ratio of 1:1.

Gas power gave just over 1MW power for 1MW share of capacity so had a fuel / capacity ratio of 1:1. Peat gave over twice as much power as capacity (2:1) while coal gave approx 1.6MW power for 1MW capacity (1.6:1). It is no surprise that the highest emitting power sources produced the most power relative to their size. This is because coal and peat store higher concentrations of energy than other fuel sources having formed over millions of years. Oil power, representing 12% of capacity, had a negative fuel / capacity ratio because these plants were lying idle most of the time. Oil plant are mostly used for "peaking" , i.e. when peak demand goes above normal which doesn't happen very often nowadays. So it had a significantly low Grid Acceptance Rate (somewhere around 1:0.01), whereas gas, peat and coal had GARs very close to 1:1 (between 1:0.85-0.95)


So how did wind do? Well, it had a negative output relative to its share of capacity. It comes out at 0.8MW of power for each share of MW installed. This is despite it having priority dispatch i.e. when the wind blows, the power is taken straight away by the grid. So levels of other power sources - mostly gas, and sometimes coal and peat - are reduced when wind is available. Applying the above definitions, this means that wind had the best Grid Acceptance Rate of all fuel sources i.e 1:1, but had a negative fuel / capacity ratio of 0.8:1. So wind and oil came out the worst, but oil had the lowest Grid Acceptance Rate, whereas wind had the highest. What this shows is that wind is a poor storage of energy when compared to coal, gas, peat and oil and storage solutions cannot solve this problem, rather it simply transfers the storage of this energy from one hour to another. What is required is a renewable source that contains higher concentrations of energy


And herein lies the problem with wind energy - you can't run a reliable grid if you install power plants that almost always give a negative fuel / capacity ratio. If you install 1,000 MW of wind, and demand hits 1,000MW, the power from the wind will almost always be less than 1,000MW so you have a blackout. This problem means that wind energy can never replace conventional plant and so competitiveness goes out the window