tomh-analyst.bsky.social
16 years as an energy market analyst, now working on asset transactions and investment advice across the energy industry. All views are my own.
More background: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-haddon-62aa7642/
1,148 posts
2,072 followers
1,362 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Hearty lol.
Commodity trading houses would beat onlyfans by 100x on that measure.
comment in response to
post
Domestic production will be modelled, but capacity wise it's pretty bang on as the MCS registry aspect is fairly water tight. Will be a very small amount of non-MCS shonky stuff out there.
comment in response to
post
They model (a.k.a guess) behind the meter stuff as far I'm aware, and anyway, just about all of it will have a grid connection and a G99/98 attached so the DNOs do have the data, they are just rubbish at data.
comment in response to
post
All I'm saying is there has been a bigger addition in capacity than installation stats will tell you, as essentially on the domestic sector (via MCS) and the utility scale sector is well monitored. Everything in between is a bit haphazard as DNOs are supposed to provide the data.
comment in response to
post
I can see the logic but it's a coincidence as an average output over the month so a lot more going on. Also, there were plenty of other years with relatively big additions which wouldn't have produced a similar big uplift even with sunnier than average weather (like 2023 with 1.2GW added)...
comment in response to
post
No, pretty sure they use the uni of Sheffield model but happy to be corrected on that.
comment in response to
post
The deployment stats might be a bit wonky.
comment in response to
post
Updated with June 1st volume. You might notice it is quite an outlier.
comment in response to
post
Although, working in energy transactions over the period, that graphic does also map pretty much to how easy it was to win work.
I could have returned a technical due diligence report on an AD asset in 2022 that consistently entirely of doodles of my dog, and no one could have cared less.
comment in response to
post
And similarly, I wouldn't say AD had some sort of massive 'ascendency'. It's just a second order effect.
So in conclusion, there is almost no conclusion to be made from that graphic.
comment in response to
post
Another example is in anaerobic digestion, which of course produces gas, but the inputs (farm waste, mostly) didn't really change (was some uplift).
The stories of capital chaotically trying to get into that market for a brief period will be legendary in the fullness of time.
comment in response to
post
The business model is fairly clear on this one:
bsky.app/profile/tomh...
comment in response to
post
She spends the vast majority of her time trying to unearth energy related conspiracy theories to sell to Spiked Online (the grid is falling over, Ed Miliband drinks children's blood etc). When you're doing that, any old rubbish will do.
comment in response to
post
Bring back the glory days of DECC. At least everyone knew how to say it.
comment in response to
post
The discussions on how to pronounce DESNZ went on for quite some time in my circles.
The previous iteration (BEIS) was also fairly hard to work out but they clarified it pretty quickly (like snooker table 'baize'), but as far as I know no one has actually clarified how to pronounce DESNZ.
comment in response to
post
I'm also incredibly happy that a joke writer at Private Eye picked up her musings too.
bsky.app/profile/tomh...
comment in response to
post
Kathryn Porter thinking schools will turn to dust before PV pays back is just too good. Too too good.
Caveat: The 'simple' payback times do look a little generous (but stripping out finance cost could do that, hence why GBE is involved).
comment in response to
post
Tom's professional opinion:
Who ever put this together used DUKES.
Who ever put this together used (I think) DUKES Table 1 / 1.1 (primary energy balance stuff).
Who ever put this together had no idea how to interpret DUKES.
comment in response to
post
Although. Do have a lot of time for this particular bit. With the dotted line falling somewhere around 2010 (maybe EMR at 2012?)
At this point coal was ~50% of electricity generation, and oil had barely anything to do with power since the 70s.
Nuclear actually grew (slightly) until 2015.
comment in response to
post
Also layer on the fact this will be measured at transmission so will be missing TWhs of 'electricity supplied' from embedded solar and wind too (fairly sharp rise from 2017 onwards).
It's basically the below all over again...sigh.
bsky.app/profile/tomh...
comment in response to
post
Like every fan of a promoted team into the Premier League yearns for relegation so they can storm the championship again.
comment in response to
post
On the left is the period for 2024, right 2025 (missing June 1st which was ~6 TWh)
Even accounting for the Troll field outage, May/Jun 25 has seen three >5TWh days in this period. Zero in 24.
Absolute 2025 storage levels are lower, allowing flexibility for injection but still, it's very strong.
comment in response to
post
No, I'm just an idiot and was using the old coal fired capacity.
comment in response to
post
Did Jonathan Leake send the boys round?
comment in response to
post
Yep, exactly that. But as I say, having that capacity to dispatch at will via the BM is going to be incredibly valuable to NESO, so government in a bind as they can clearly see the biomass political issues at play while the system operator will be requiring it.
comment in response to
post
Turns out it was fairly brutal. Two consecutive days of >5% losses.
Will see how next week opens, probably a slight bounce back to be expected, but given the injection performance over May, things are *not* looking bullish out there.
comment in response to
post
Not for one moment saying this is something that is going to stick. Prices could well recover, and could even recover today their lost 4% today, but currently it's taking big effort to nudge higher, and not a lot to fall quickly.
comment in response to
post
To me, that just shows where the true centre of gravity is in European gas price.
You can artificially force-nudge prices higher by cramming in commercial (not physical) buyers of gas, but eventually someone looks at the fundamentals and calls time to be up, and you collapse back.
comment in response to
post
I think that's pretty much the genesis of it rather than its end point (rising out the pro-nuclear, pro-fossil lobbies in reaction to the EEG in Germany).
comment in response to
post
Me going down for a long stretch for imprisoning the next person who tries to use it in a serious way.
That's the cost.
comment in response to
post
So, in essence I don't share Martien's worries that it's artificially pulling prices down now & baking in higher winter prices.
Injection rates are strong, plus, demand is that much lower ('25 potentially -20% vs '24) that means the % filled of storage isn't actually that important as it once was.
comment in response to
post
Sorry, got the day wrong, actually went about 4 TWh.
The dip was unfortunate as power outage hit production from the main Norwegian offshore field but production is recovering.
comment in response to
post
Context to my claws out comment:
bsky.app/profile/tomh...
comment in response to
post
In the UK, yes because all big generators are under ROCs or CfDs so no need to get a PPA in this form.
(nerdy note: On CfD you still need a PPA for a route to market but it will just be with whoever your aggregator is not with a commercial off taker as such)
comment in response to
post
Sorry, industry jargon meets need to keep to character limits: Battery Energy Storage System (BESS).