Somewhat irritated - Octopus price rise ?

I don't think any company would put in bid which would bankrupt it. They would add their profit margin to the actual price.
I'm losing track of what we are talking about but almost all the energy selling companies went bust in 2021 when the price of gas went up. Only the big/careful ones had hedged adequately.
 
Makes a nonsense of the claim that Octopus is a 100% renewable electricity provider when the price of its electricity supply is influenced by a fossil fuel - the price structure needs to be uncoupled.:mad:
Big problem with our setup. Wind and solar are a lot cheaper when they are running yes but when they aren’t you are extremely limited in what you can do - once the pumped storage is exhausted (1-2GW for a few hours at best) you need something else. The only thing quick acting enough is gas turbines running on gas or oil. The 100% renewable supply is merely on average, the electrons moving around your house may well be from coal (until end of sept) diesel, gas, nuclear. It gets even more complex when you look at load centres vs generation and grid inertia. Sometimes they would have to curtail wind AND fire up some gas. Physics is a harsh mistress.

The French are doing better now as their reactors are coming back online after their issues during the worst of the crunch. Imho (as a weird physicist) nuclear would be the best especially for EV drivers (stupid cost overruns, political games with it and objections aside). Less flexible in the main which would give plenty of capacity off peak for us to soak up, storage heaters back in vogue and not requiring such large grid upgrades plus they tend to last longer than wind/solar. Throw in some load following plants, newer reactors do this - even the old French ones close at weekends. Heck we were pioneers in it many moons ago, but it’s too late now by around 20years.

Selfishly my little bet on prices with BG tariff, no smart charger, seem to have been right with a fix until Oct 2025
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big problem with our setup. Wind and solar are a lot cheaper when they are running yes but when they aren’t you are extremely limited in what you can do - once the pumped storage is exhausted (1-2GW for a few hours at best) you need something else. The only thing quick acting enough is gas turbines running on gas or oil. The 100% renewable supply is merely on average, the electrons moving around your house may well be from coal (until end of sept) diesel, gas, nuclear. It gets even more complex when you look at load centres vs generation and grid inertia. Sometimes they would have to curtail wind AND fire up some gas. Physics is a harsh mistress.

The French are doing better now as their reactors are coming back online after their issues during the worst of the crunch. Imho (as a weird physicist) nuclear would be the best especially for EV drivers (stupid cost overruns, political games with it and objections aside). Less flexible in the main which would give plenty of capacity off peak for us to soak up, storage heaters back in vogue and not requiring such large grid upgrades plus they tend to last longer than wind/solar. Throw in some load following plants, newer reactors do this - even the old French ones close at weekends. Heck we were pioneers in it many moons ago, but it’s too late now by around 20years.

Selfishly my little bet on prices with BG tariff, no smart charger, seem to have been right with a fix until Oct 2025
Fair point, well made. Maybe the problem is only having one price irrespective of the source. It appears, if you choose a green supplier, that you are subsidising the fossil fuels industry if you paying for electricity produced by a turbine as though is was produced by burning gas. By decoupling the supply market, you could have one price for sustainable (when available) and another price for FF generation. The retail suppliers can then give a true picture of the balance of supply. Call it, I don't know, Dynamic Pricing.
 
Last edited:
Would you also be prepared to have no electricity when no 'sustainable' supply is available? If not I'm afraid you have to pay for flexible (fossil fuel) generation. Also, you are actually subsidising renewables by paying them the marginal cost of gas generation.
 
Fair point, well made. Maybe the problem is only have one price irrespective of the source. It appears, if you choose a green supplier, that you are subsidising the fossil fuels industry if you paying for electricity produced by a turbine as though is was produced by burning gas. By decoupling the supply market, you could have one price for sustainable (when available) and another price for FF generation. The retail suppliers can then give a true picture of the balance of supply. Call it, I don't know, Dynamic Pricing.
As others have pointed out you would then have to have no electricity when they aren’t running. The renewables also get what is called CFD - basically they get topped up on price of electricity when the cost collapses and remember you are paying gas prices for their “cheap” renewables by that logic ergo subsidising renewables not fossil. Without gargantuan storage (physically and economically not do-able) it’s all a bit messy.

There is also another angle - who will run the gas plants if we get to the stage of them running for very little time. Their upkeep costs would begin to dwarf income hence they would get even pricier. Would it balance out ? Maybe ? Seems a bit crazy to duplicate the supply capacity though, look at a factory for example you don’t have complete spare factories tooled up. Everything is lean and just in time else it gets a lot pricier.
 
Flexible generation is maintained on the system through the Capacity Market. Basically this is a mechanism for meeting the fixed costs of the minimum level of generation needed to ensure supply in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Like CfDs the cost is spread across all electricity users. Complicated ain't it.
 
As others have pointed out you would then have to have no electricity when they aren’t running. The renewables also get what is called CFD - basically they get topped up on price of electricity when the cost collapses and remember you are paying gas prices for their “cheap” renewables by that logic ergo subsidising renewables not fossil. Without gargantuan storage (physically and economically not do-able) it’s all a bit messy.

There is also another angle - who will run the gas plants if we get to the stage of them running for very little time. Their upkeep costs would begin to dwarf income hence they would get even pricier. Would it balance out ? Maybe ? Seems a bit crazy to duplicate the supply capacity though, look at a factory for example you don’t have complete spare factories tooled up. Everything is lean and just in time else it gets a lot pricier.
My comments were only regarding pricing structures, nothing to do with generation. Octopus have free hours so they know when they expect excess generation available, they also know from whom they buy their electricity. If there were two markets for retail companies to buy from (renewable, fossil) rather than one then you would be able to offer the end customer different prices. When no renewals are available the green suppliers would have to buy from the fossil fuel market to fill the gap and could charge the end user accordingly. The government appears to favour nuclear as their method for coping with gas no longer being economic and indeed that appears frighteningly expensive even if it is viable.
 
Nuclear is viable. It is not a replacement for gas though. It is what is termed base load. Once on, it stays on until closure typically planned many months in advance. Whereas gas you can switch on and off within minutes and you can also vary the output once it's operating. You need this flexible generation, because total demand in the UK varies enormously throughout the day and storage options are limited.

The wholesale electricity market is also very different to the consumer market. There is no single price as such. A company like Octopus will have a range of contracts with generators optimised to suit it's customer portfolio and is also likely to be buying on the short term spot markets. These spot prices can sometimes be very low and even negative particularly when renewables generation (plus baseload) exceeds total UK demand. I imagine Octopus is using these occasions to offer you free electricity. The spot prices can also be very high.

The current market structure is designed to stimulate investment in renewables and to most efficiently ensure the whole system is reliable. You have to pay for that reliability one way or another or accept periods without electricity.
 
Aren't their prices subsidised by the French Govt?
Not sure if, subsidised is the right word. EDF prices are regulated and offset by government and there are new suppliers coming onto the market who operate in the same manner as British ones so if they are not competitive no one will sign up . there is also less reliance on fossil fuels and world prices of such , so a smoother less volatile pricing structure can exist. ??
 
There is also another angle - who will run the gas plants if we get to the stage of them running for very little time. Their upkeep costs would begin to dwarf income hence they would get even pricier. Would it balance out ? Maybe ? Seems a bit crazy to duplicate the supply capacity though, look at a factory for example you don’t have complete spare factories tooled up. Everything is lean and just in time else it gets a lot pricier.
Why not just keep using fossil fuels? 1. They are non-renewable so the more we use the less there is for future generations 2. Climate change creates unbearable costs which is an injustice to future poor people.

That will require a transition and that is going to be very expensive.

When you've built it all the costs will be lower, but there will still be system costs, and all the storage and backup does have costs as well.
Nuclear is viable. It is not a replacement for gas though. It is what is termed base load. Once on, it stays on until closure typically planned many months in advance. Whereas gas you can switch on and off within minutes and you can also vary the output once it's operating. You need this flexible generation, because total demand in the UK varies enormously throughout the day and storage options are limited.
Base load is a description of a type of demand (the consistent demand even at the lowest point in the day).

In the future there will be no baseload demand on a summer day because houses and industrial buildings will have solar to cover their demand. This "duck curve" already occurs in Australia and California.

Nuclear is a kind of supply (as are wind/whatever else).

There are two kinds of gas plant - inefficient and expensive peaker plants that can be ramped quickly and more efficient ones that cannot be ramped so quickly.

Batteries will soon be taking care of peaks because they are competitive with gas peakers, especially since most of the time they will be filled up from cheap renewables.

The only real problem for the future system is long term storage to cover periods of "dunkelfleute" (no sun and wind for a week). Looking like green hydrogen stored in deep underground caverns is the most useful for that.

Good idea to have a few nuclear power plants as well to add some extra security into the mix, but they cost an absolute fortune (a) to build, (b) to run and (c) to deal with the waste.

Michael Leibreich's podcast Cleaning Up is very good on the net zero energy transition, for those who want to explore.
 
Quite. I was describing the situation as it is today, rather than what may be the case in the future.
 
Why not just keep using fossil fuels? 1. They are non-renewable so the more we use the less there is for future generations 2. Climate change creates unbearable costs which is an injustice to future poor people.

That will require a transition and that is going to be very expensive.

When you've built it all the costs will be lower, but there will still be system costs, and all the storage and backup does have costs as well.

Base load is a description of a type of demand (the consistent demand even at the lowest point in the day).

In the future there will be no baseload demand on a summer day because houses and industrial buildings will have solar to cover their demand. This "duck curve" already occurs in Australia and California.

Nuclear is a kind of supply (as are wind/whatever else).

There are two kinds of gas plant - inefficient and expensive peaker plants that can be ramped quickly and more efficient ones that cannot be ramped so quickly.

Batteries will soon be taking care of peaks because they are competitive with gas peakers, especially since most of the time they will be filled up from cheap renewables.

The only real problem for the future system is long term storage to cover periods of "dunkelfleute" (no sun and wind for a week). Looking like green hydrogen stored in deep underground caverns is the most useful for that.

Good idea to have a few nuclear power plants as well to add some extra security into the mix, but they cost an absolute fortune (a) to build, (b) to run and (c) to deal with the waste.

Michael Leibreich's podcast Cleaning Up is very good on the net zero energy transition, for those who want to explore.
Well said. Part of the problem appears to be the glacial speed of our wonderful governments in mandating change. Minimum insulation standards for new homes wouldn't add a lot to the cost of the house but retrospective fitting is expensive and less effective. Where appropriate, solar panels required on new homes (think Germany has that so it can be done). Compared to the purchase price of a new home these wouldn't add much. Remember the fuss about the minimum wage? Governments now appear to enjoy raising the minimum whenever they can. The duration from deciding to start a major new piece of infrastructure to supplying to the grid is long enough to make such new "big schemes" irrelevant now - we can't generate our way out of the problem but we can reduce demand quite quickly. One side of Europe on fire while the other side is flooding indicates that climate breakdown is here now, we can't wait 20 years until carbon capture and all these other big fixes get working properly. And on that cheerful note... ?‍?
 
Support us by becoming a Premium Member

Latest MG EVs video

MG ZS EV Retrospective & First Look at the MG S5 EV | Live Q&A with Owners & MGEVs Panel
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom