Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 8:00:16 GMT
You obviously haven't taken in the most basic points. Yes, it would be good to use all generation usefully - but 1/ *NOT* if it means having a lot of plant sitting idle the majority of the time. That would just mean swapping "surplus" generation for "surplus" storage capacity. How much more plainly can it be put?  If you're up for doing numbers then, in TWhs to the nearest XX, could you mention the likely required storage requirements if the 'plan'** is........ As above! 2/ Common sense dictates it's worth establishing general principles before spending a long time working out the minutiae - 3/ let's keep the horse in front of the cart. Bear in mind the fundamental principle that if you make 4/ electricity from gas, each kWh of electricity will be more than a kWh of gas - make gas from electricity and it will be the other way round. Is that really so difficult to understand? 1/ The current system is far from optimal for each component - you recently agreed that!! Any future system will have a lot of 'sub-optimal' use of each component part (eg some electrolysers that will not be used 24h/365days, solar panels that only generate when it is sunny, wind farms that only generate when it is windy, etc) but without a component for massive medium-long term storage capacity then the 'constraint payments' of a mostly renewable based supply will become massive and far from optimal for the whole system (hence the example of Octopus prices last night). Hence the polite request for you to put a number on the TWh of grid battery storage and annual cycle rates you think we'd need without hydrogen storage (see also continental Europe and the amount of nat.gas storage they have that will hopefully in due course be converted to hydrogen storage - in UK we store nat.gas as a fossil fuel or import as LNG, so we'll need to build a lot more salt caverns and use exports). There will be no 'surplus' storage of hydrogen (pretty obvious you can only store what you have built storage for) but if it is more economic to store hydrogen than make massive constraint payments (which in time, with some incentives to get there it will be) then it's a #nobrainer to store most of the surplus rather than pay suppliers to stop supplying electricity. Note I'm not saying there will be no constraint payments ever, just a lot less than there would be if we don't have massive medium-longterm storage capacity AS WELL AS a lot of short-term (intra-day type) storage. 2/ !?!?! The general principles are well established. It is time to start doing, not delaying. The path to net zero will take decades so it can be adapted along the way if/when better options become available and/or we learn by doing (eg tidal lagoons are worth reconsidering IMO, build the Swansea one and see if we should build more or not). 3/ It is not so much 'horse and cart' as 'chicken+egg'. However, using your analogy then we're building the horses (additional wind farms) so it is time to start ensuring we have a lot of carts ready for when the horses are ready. Other countries (eg Portugal) are doing just that. 4/ As I've pointed out (via the infographic that you misinterpreted and NG's future scenarios that you might not have even bothered to look at) then we will rarely use hydrogen to make grid electricity - it is much more the case of using 'surplus' electricity to make green hydrogen for lots of possible uses (including reducing, and in-time eliminating, grey hydrogen). However, you seem to be under some misunderstanding, possibly via your 'friend', that electricity has a 'fixed' price and that price is, and always will, be defined by the price of nat.gas - it isn't now and it certainly won't be in the future. It is You who obviously hasn't taken in the most basic points and are now going back on stuff you had already agreed (eg #1). Shall we agree to ignore each other, as I've got better things to do than waste my time with people who don't even understand the basics and prefer 'climate delay' to action. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 8:39:43 GMT
A piece with 7 suggestions. Note between the horses and carts we have 'reins' (aka as transmission distribution cables) and plenty we need to be doing there as well. Currently we often have a Scottish* horse available but the cart it needs to pull is in SE England. I fully admit to be repeatedly drawn into futile discussion about point 4.4 "Bring forward revenue support for long-duration storage" (and point2 and especially point 3.4, also point 5). Perhaps we put that to one side and focus on the other issues - there are a lot of other issues! Seven solutions to the rising cost of transmission network constraint management www.regen.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Regen-Insight-Managing-Constraint-Costs.pdfOur grid is evolving very quickly, far quicker than it has done in the past. The current 'donkey' pace needs to be stepped up. Some 'carrots+sticks' will be required and unless they up their game pronto then I'll be glad when the jockey is replaced with New Model Tory Plan B. * Somewhat simplistic but if we can get folks 'angry' about the 'switch-offs' and that raises the political motivation to move faster and further then great.
'Staggering' wind farm switch-offs cost energy customers nearly £1bnwww.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/23008149.staggering-wind-farm-switch-offs-cost-energy-customers-nearly-1bn/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2022 10:27:11 GMT
A piece with 7 suggestions. Note between the horses and carts we have 'reins' (aka as transmission distribution cables) and plenty we need to be doing there as well. Currently we often have a Scottish* horse available but the cart it needs to pull is in SE England. I fully admit to be repeatedly drawn into futile discussion about point 4.4 "Bring forward revenue support for long-duration storage" (and point2 and especially point 3.4, also point 5). Perhaps we put that to one side and focus on the other issues - there are a lot of other issues! Seven solutions to the rising cost of transmission network constraint management www.regen.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Regen-Insight-Managing-Constraint-Costs.pdfOur grid is evolving very quickly, far quicker than it has done in the past. The current 'donkey' pace needs to be stepped up. Some 'carrots+sticks' will be required and unless they up their game pronto then I'll be glad when the jockey is replaced with New Model Tory Plan B. * Somewhat simplistic but if we can get folks 'angry' about the 'switch-offs' and that raises the political motivation to move faster and further then great.
'Staggering' wind farm switch-offs cost energy customers nearly £1bnwww.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/23008149.staggering-wind-farm-switch-offs-cost-energy-customers-nearly-1bn/Why not just stop this nonsense ?. Long term contracts I suppose |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 10:58:53 GMT
Why not just stop this nonsense ?. Long term contracts I suppose Which specific bit of 'nonsense'? I assume you mean paying suppliers to not supply during periods of 'surplus'? Part of the regional issue could be partially solved by ensuring that grid transmission upgrades keep pace with new/expected 'bolt-on' supply (eg the Scottish wind farm supply -> SE Eng demand). Even better (but in conjunction) then more localised storage (see Scotland adding some more pumped hydro (short-term storage) but they could look at more medium-long term storage* that cuts out the electricity transmission grid entirely) For the far bigger and growing issue of overall imbalances then rewriting contracts or at least ensuring new contracts are 'different' would be useful (mostly on supply side, but some stuff could be done on demand side as well). Most contracts are already long-term (eg Hinkley Point C is 35yrs**). The article I posted showed that some suppliers (mostly CCGT) have been 'gaming' the system by exploiting some aspects of their contracts. The 'contracts for difference' approach for wind was great in order to get that tech well established and reduce costs, but that approach is (IMO) unsustainable unless we make huge investment in storage capacity (GWhs for short-term and TWhs for long-term) to reduce the growth trajectory of constraint payments. * renews.biz/78426/rwe-sgn-to-deliver-wind-to-hydrogen-in-scotland/www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/much-needed-step-floating-wind-fuelled-hydrogen-pilot-ready-to-deliver-off-france/2-1-1316719** www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Hinkley-Point-C-contract-terms-08101401.htmlPS In any 'optimal' grid you will continue to need some spare capacity*** and hence 'constraints' (unless you accept energy rationing as the solution) but the constraint payments should only be for very rare occasions if you plan ahead. Until recently the ££cost was quite small but unless we plan ahead much better in the future then those ££costs will grow massively and IMO unnecessarily (and fortunately NG et al are aware of that) *** EG hydrogen powered 'peaked plants' www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/why-hydrogen-fired-power-plants-will-play-a-major-role-in-the-energy-transition/2-1-1045768 |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 11, 2022 11:02:41 GMT
colin - "Why not just stop this nonsense ?. Long term contracts I suppose" Well the constraint payments are written into the existing...long term contracts. I think this is where Trevor's rather repetitive argument falls down. Constraint payments are used because they are the cheapest way to manage a balanced network. If we get to the point where we have e-fuel producers ready to use 'surplus' electricity to generate hydrogen and other fuels, Trevor seems to think that constraint payments will stop. They won't. Or at least, payments will be made in other ways to fund the costs of idle electrolysis plant, to fund a base income for storage projects, and to pay for the costs of differential pricing on demand shifting etc. Also worth noting that while every article you read on constraint payments is targeted at wind farms, the nuclear sector has done pretty well out of constraint payments (less so in recent year).
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 11, 2022 12:18:54 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 12:25:45 GMT
More on long-term contracts. I don't like to see UK (or our friends in Europe) signing up to long-term nat.gas imports. That creates 'inertia' to move faster in weaning ourselves off nat.gas and prolonging the transition. The current high prices for nat.gas should show the gob smackingly obvious need to move away from nat.gas not sign up to long-term contracts. www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/topics/energy-price-crisis |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 13:30:34 GMT
Pretty sure I would have posted this before, but it is worth posting again. Note: Exploiting storage potential in a heavily constrained network
If the energy contributing to network congestion could be stored and used at a different time, system balancing costs could be significantly reduced.
But storage providers* need better market signals** to be able to build in the right locations and help resolve constraints on a regional level.
www.nationalgrideso.com/news/our-5-point-plan-manage-constraints-system* Those need to be broken down a bit. Intra-day (GW of capacity, GWh of storage). Pumped hydro, grid batteries and 'individual' demand response (eg charge BEVs overnight) Long-term (GW of capacity, TWh of storage). Covered ad nauseam, although I appreciate some might still think that green hydrogen won't replace the role of the massive amount of nat.gas storage across Europe (which even if fully repurposed won't be enough***). There is obviously very different number of annual cycles between short and long-term and lots of factors involved. It would be great to build more pumped hydro and we'll certainly need a lot of grid batteries but to maximise the utilisation you want to run them every day if you can - possibly even twice/day if you team them up with a certain part of the system that is taking care of the long-term side of things  ** Price and predictability are the two main 'market signals' but in a planned system then, to reduce investment risk (ie incentivise investment), govt need to provide 'carrot+stick' incentives to ensure the growing number of horses (renewable supplies) are matched by the right number of carts - or at least get it fairly close, given we want to significantly reduce system balancing costs (versus the 'do nothing' (aka as 'falling short') approach preferred by climate delayers/vested interests). Quite obviously we also want to reduce any excessive over-capacity of any component in the system. NG know all of that, but a lot of decisions WRT to 'approval' and 'contracts' need to come from HMG. *** www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2225419-h2-storage-needs-to-exceed-existing-gas-storage-giePS Lots more info on the 'options' can be found at www.nationalgrideso.com/research-publications/network-options-assessment-noa |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 11, 2022 14:30:18 GMT
Mr Poppy - " If the energy contributing to network congestion could be stored and used at a different time, system balancing costs could be significantly reduced. But storage providers* need better market signals** to be able to build in the right locations and help resolve constraints on a regional level." Indeed - that's exactly what I've been saying for several years now. The basics principles are very straightforward but it needs a proper market structure to deliver. But it really is worth noting that the seasonal imbalances are unlikely to be as severe as some make out, referencing again the relatively flat annual pattern of UK renewable generation, and also it has to be noted that the biggest "vested interests" are the fossil fuel companies who are pushing very hard indeed for a big role for hydrogen. That would be substantially more expensive, with much of that spend going to....the fossil fuel companies. So I think we're kind of in agreement, but we just need to work on those definitions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2022 15:33:05 GMT
Why not just stop this nonsense ?. Long term contracts I suppose Which specific bit of 'nonsense'? I assume you mean paying suppliers to not supply during periods of 'surplus'? Yep.. I realise its all fiendishly complicated but the costs of Balancing are huge and increasing :- www.elexon.co.uk/article/bsc-insight-increasing-costs-for-balancing-the-gb-system/I found this from OFGEM which seems to suggest the generators game the system :- chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-12/Open%20letter%20on%20trends%20in%20balancing%20costs%20in%202021.pdf As I say-I realise its complex-but I get the impression that provides scope for exploitation. I guess Sunak just has too much to do to get into the weeds on this. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 11, 2022 15:36:56 GMT
The current system is far from optimal for each component - you recently agreed that!! Any future system will have a lot of 'sub-optimal' use of each component part (eg some electrolysers that will not be used 24h/365days, solar panels that only generate when it is sunny, wind farms that only generate when it is windy, etc) but without a component for massive medium-long term storage capacity then the 'constraint payments' of a mostly renewable based supply will become massive and far from optimal for the whole system (hence the example of Octopus prices last night). Hence the polite request for you to put a number on the TWh of grid battery storage and annual cycle rates you think we'd need without hydrogen storage I'll try once again. I agree with the first part of what you say - but you imply that the only way to avoid constraint is..... electrolysis and hydrogen. (With some grid batteries.) Which has never been true, and is becoming less and less so. Only a few years ago I'd have scoffed at the concept of Li-Ion girid batteries - they are already a huge market, and getting bigger. But new possibilities are coming along all the time - we've mentioned compressed and liquid air, plus closed loop liquefaction of carbon dioxide. This is quite apart from clever metering to influence demand. The hydrogen concept (of energy storage) dates from 10-20 years ago, when grid batteries were infeasible, and such as liquid CO2 was none existent. And still heavily promoted by vested interests. Which is why there is no point in asking for exact figures - it's not a case of how much battery storage if not hydrogen, as you imply. It's a question of how much of each of a number of technologies, and that in turn will vary with changing relative costs. Note I am **NOT** saying there is no place for green electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis. There is. But only built out as a generation and production system and operational for a high percentage of the time. That's a world apart from this dream of using it to just absorb peaks of generation and who cares about expensive plant being idle most of the time? And the market for such is huge (dependent on pricing) - replace hydrogen already used in industry. It's simply ridiculous to start thinking of new uses such as for road transport, where battery is now so far ahead, and gaining all the time. Which is how we started this discussion. Even Shell have thrown in the towel regarding hydrogen for passenger cars now, and Toyota are starting to make noises about battery cars. EXACTLY. I'm glad someone can see the fundamental issues, can separate out the basic issues from contracts/pricing etc. I've emphasised the most relevant phrase in what you say above! To make it worthwhile to have electrolysis/compression plant sitting idle ready to avoid generation constraint payments, you'll have to pay constraint payments when it is idle! |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 16:29:57 GMT
Which specific bit of 'nonsense'? I assume you mean paying suppliers to not supply during periods of 'surplus'? Yep.. I realise its all fiendishly complicated but the costs of Balancing are huge and increasing :- www.elexon.co.uk/article/bsc-insight-increasing-costs-for-balancing-the-gb-system/I found this from OFGEM which seems to suggest the generators game the system :- chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-12/Open%20letter%20on%20trends%20in%20balancing%20costs%20in%202021.pdf As I say-I realise its complex-but I get the impression that provides scope for exploitation. I guess Sunak just has too much to do to get into the weeds on this. Rishi needs to delegate but all HMG really need to do is take the advice of the grid operator (and maybe give early retirement to a few of the dinosaurs stalling decisions) CCGT operators have been gaming the system but it is very hard to prove - they've been Warned though (as the letter you posted points out). The issue in previous years and this year has been 'excess demand' (from UK and our interconnected friends) so not only are we using nat.gas for base load  but we've also been exporting a load of electricity to nos amis. For those blissfully unaware then I'll quote from Ofgem: Interconnectors make money in the wholesale market from congestion revenueswww.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-policy-and-regulation/policy-and-regulatory-programmes/interconnectorsI'm pretty sure everyone is aware of les problèmes avec French nuclear this year but I'll repost their equiv of UK's grid watch (change the date to same day last year and note the massive drop (10GW-ish) in nuclear power generation and if you use the UK grid watch you can see who has been helping them out with their problem most days, especially windy days+nights). www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source#gridwatch.co.ukNG find the 'cheapest' way to balance the grid and hence this year they've paid to use interconnectors a lot more as that is a cheaper way to deal with 'congestion' than getting wind farms to shut down (given they'd still have to pay wind farms anyway). I very much hope the French situation gets fixed very quickly. The contracts we have are 'commercial' and, don't alert the Daily Wail, but it is costing UK consumers to help nos amis out and we're going to struggle to do that if their problem continues through the Winter. In the future we'll need to up our game and have storage built and ready in time. Wind farms are likely to grow to 50GW of capacity by 2030* and without storage, and ensuring we change the way we write contracts in the future, then balancing the grid is going to get very expensive indeed - or, somewhat ironically given the situation today, we'll be hoping it is not too windy. * UK Government has set out its ambition to deliver 50GW of offshore wind by 2030 – a significant scale up from the 11.3GW of offshore wind we currently have connected in GBwww.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/the-pathway-2030-holistic-network-design |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 11, 2022 17:00:12 GMT
Mr Poppy - "For those blissfully unaware then I'll quote from Ofgem: Interconnectors make money in the wholesale market from congestion revenues.." You do make me smile sometimes Trevor. It's only 4 hours since I pointed that out to you. But great that you're no longer "blissfully unaware". 
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 17:08:04 GMT
Please, no one alert any journos at the Daily Wail but I'll post a screenshot taken just now, as we head into peak UK daily demand!!! Note the various ICs in GW (10min average) where +ve = import, -ve =export but all numbers = 'congestion' Nsl (Norway): +1.10 IC France: -0.688 IC2 France: -1.03 IC Eleclink (France): -0.776 Subtotal: -2.494 IC Ned (Netherlands): -0.976 IC Nem (Belgium): -0.184 IC Irl (NI): -0.376 IC Ew (S.Eire): -0.370 Subtotal: -0.746 Grand totals: Imports: +1.10 Exports: -4.40 Net: -3.30 (ie export) and note the increase CCGT from a 'base load' of providing 4GW to 12.5GW. We can and should smooth some of that intra-day imbalance out but we're burning vast amount of nat.gas (and 'peaking' our plants as well) in order to supply our neighbours. I hope they remember that on cold, low wind days in January and don't go all 'Brussels' on us. Even if the French get their act together on restarting their nuclear then we can take a look at gas as well if people are interested in how we've been helping them out there as well (links previously posted but happy to repost them again) Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by deleted2 on Nov 11, 2022 17:58:36 GMT
Please, no one alert any journos at the Daily Wail but I'll post a screenshot taken just now, as we head into peak UK daily demand!!! Why do you want to suppress the truth? The press should report what is happening and why it is happening. I doubt the Police will come and arrest you if you pass on some info to a newspaper but to be safe then maybe make the call from a gantry on the M25 as they'll defo not bother you then  |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 18:24:40 GMT
Please, no one alert any journos at the Daily Wail but I'll post a screenshot taken just now, as we head into peak UK daily demand!!! Why do you want to suppress the truth? The press should report what is happening and why it is happening. I doubt the Police will come and arrest you if you pass on some info to a newspaper but to be safe then maybe make the call from a gantry on the M25 as they'll defo not bother you then Well, don't alert the Daily Wail just yet at least. It's Entente at the moment avec nos amis. Provided a/ they know we're helping them and b/ do some stuff we want from them (you know the list) and c/ remember who their friends are in Jan-Mar when we might want some energy flowing back the other way for brief periods*; then don't get the gammons wound up. Speaking of the eco-idiots then maybe let them know about UK burning gas to send electricity to France next time you bump (hopefully not literally) into them. I know you won't mind if they take their protests to the interconnector sites and get some press attention as IIRC we agree that “work with Ofgem, developers and our European partners to realise at least 18 GW of interconnector capacity by 2030” is a bad idea. Hopefully that is a legacy of the Kwarteng era that gets a 'rethink'. We need to move to a more localised system within UK to shorten supply-demand chains and reduce stuff like 'bullwhip' effect. Pretty obvious why likes of Germany want a more interconnected system to get cheap(er than it would otherwise be) electricity but that is their problem, not ours. I'll be very happy to sell them hydrogen in the near future though, bit of 'value add' in that and we will hopefully have more than we need of that in the near future www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-security-bill-factsheets/energy-security-bill-factsheet-multi-purpose-interconnectors* That will also likely be when they go all 'Brussels' on us as they'll have to decide whether to break commercial contracts or 'ration' their own energy usage. If they turn off the interconnectors (more so gas than electricity) then.. well... Entente will be over and I'll write to the Daily Wail then |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 11, 2022 18:42:41 GMT
@ deleted2 I'm sure you spotted this bit of news, something that is not on the "Horizon"... a few highlights " support energy-intensive industries in developing economies including India and Indonesia to go green"
(ie exporting our green tech to major economies in the other 99% of the Planet) and "UK government’s support, alongside Germany.." 
www.gov.uk/government/news/global-agreement-in-green-tech-will-open-doors-for-uk-plcI'm aware of the Swiss deal and upcoming Israel deal as those snubbed by Brussels make their own friends but was surprised (OK, well not really) to see Germany acting in their own self-interest and working with UK, circumventing Brussels diktat. Well if the escargot is too arrogant and too slow then can't blame them for not wanting to miss out on chance to snaffle some export market potential |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 11, 2022 21:00:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by deleted2 on Nov 11, 2022 22:00:20 GMT
To make it worthwhile to have electrolysis/compression plant sitting idle ready to avoid generation constraint payments, you'll have to pay constraint payments when it is idle! WTF?!?! Do we pay solar providers when they are 'idle' at night time? NO, coz that would be stupid wouldn't it. It is very clear you don't understand the current system let alone what we will need in the future. Which bit of an 'optimal system' will have lots of sub-optimal components do you still not understand - given you recently agreed that was how it works and how it would work in the future. Electrolysers will need to be economically viable as Mr Poppy has repeatedly explained. That is not 24h/365days, just 'economically viable' amounts of 'surplus' electricity (which he has also explained, more than once). |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 12, 2022 8:26:26 GMT
Lots of exemptions and I note this one: "Finally, when the installation of panels "cannot be met under economically acceptable conditions" (something that could cover a wide range of scenarios), they can also be excluded"France is better placed than UK for solar. I'll repost a link where folks can put in different countries or look at a World map globalsolaratlas.info/global-pv-potential-studyFrom your link: "It's not clear how parking lot operators will pay for these installations, or how much financial aid the government will provide"
For places where the economics make the most sense you shouldn't need to offer 'carrots' (beyond perhaps some form of 'loan guarantee') as the investment would pay for itself very quickly: Spain: spanishnewstoday.com/solar-parking-space-the-most-cost_effective-dual-function-for-public-and-private-car-parks-from-grupo-sia_1752210-a.htmland what in 2000 was: World's Largest Solar Parking Lot Opens in Californiawww.greenbiz.com/article/worlds-largest-solar-parking-lot-opens-californiaAdd in EV charging points and 'solar parking' is a great idea for a lot of places. Solar is also an excellent energy provider for places whose seasonal climate means they use a lot of air-conditioning (AC) during the most sunny months (eg Southern Europe, most of the USA, etc) . The question for places that get less sun, and don't need AC, is if you deploy a lot of solar, then what do you do for those long, colder, Winter months when the sun doesn't shine very much? GSA_Global-PV-potential-study_Factsheet_Fra....pdf (344.21 KB) |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 12, 2022 8:55:52 GMT
PDF for UK Solar. Note a/ the graph at bottom right corner on page 1 (seasonal supply is opposite of seasonal demand in UK given we don't have much AC for our, normally*, mild Summers but we do need heating for Cold Winters) b/ The first two graphs on page2. UK is very close to being the worst place in the World for solar: in 'theoretical potential'; and due to seasonality NB That doesn't mean we shouldn't have some, but the question for those that want a lot of solar in UK is "what do you do for those long, colder, Winter months when the sun doesn't shine very much?"
Attachment Deleted
* Disturbingly some folks might start using more AC in UK (and elsewhere) due to Global Warming.  PS Added gov.uk 'maybe' plan for solar: " We will also look to increase the UK’s current 14GW of solar capacity which could grow up to 5 times by 2035, consulting on the rules for solar projects, particularly on domestic and commercial rooftops"www.gov.uk/government/news/major-acceleration-of-homegrown-power-in-britains-plan-for-greater-energy-independenceWhich combined with expanding wind (much better option for UK) then a second and linked question, especially if nos amis connected to UK by interconnectors are going big on solar, is: "what do you do with all that surplus electricity we'll have in Summer - given nos amis aren't going want our surplus during our shared Summer?"3a/ pay suppliers to not supply3b/ do something useful with the surplus (which by then will be into 'economically viable' time periods and quantities to be.. 'economically viable')PPS In the future then we will of course (so obvious I hope it doesn't need to be mentioned again) occasionally have periods of 'excess supply' when you do need to pay some providers to not supply and periods of 'excess demand' where you might repurpose some nat.gas 'peaker plants' to use hydrogen. As we build out the 'optimal system' you will have 'steps' where some parts are build a little too early or a little too late. Ideally we're thinking ahead and can anticipate when (and where) to add the storage so it comes online exactly when we need it.
Perfection is not attainable but if we plan and aim for perfection we will hit excellence
To fail to plan is to plan to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by deleted2 on Nov 12, 2022 11:06:21 GMT
Your link doesn't work but if you're finally using National Grid data then great. The link, previously posted, for monthly reports is data.nationalgrideso.com/balancing/mbssLooking at the numbers you've 'found' in the most recent report then you appear to have skipped the important sections and taken ![]() numbers from table 3 on page 31. Do you think interconnectors are a 'fuel type'? Yes, the system is complicated but are trolling yourself with your final sentence? " anyone who thinks that having more uses for excess generation capacity will mean an end to substantial balancing costs doesn't know the system very well"What happened to all the fancy upcoming tech that would provide Demand Side Response (DSR) that you used to bang on about on UKPR? It was clear you didn't know the system very well and perhaps have finally realised that DSR can help a bit but isn't going to be anywhere near the scale required and that grid level solutions are required (both for day-day and between seasons)? Or are you referring to "doesn't know the system very well" to not only our National Grid operator but the operator of every grid in the entire World - in both the present and the future tense? Of course I expect you think you know more than them (and perhaps that an interconnecter is a fuel type). I assume the two likes you got are for comic value. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 12, 2022 13:10:10 GMT
have wind costing £59.7m out of a total of £836.43m. (Gas £178.9m and interconnectors £537.8m). Complicated stuff, this energy network, and anyone who thinks that having more uses for excess generation capacity will mean an end to substantial balancing costs doesn't know the system very well. Yes, the system is complicated but are trolling yourself with your final sentence? " anyone who thinks that having more uses for excess generation capacity will mean an end to substantial balancing costs doesn't know the system very well"What happened to all the fancy upcoming tech that would provide Demand Side Response (DSR) that you used to bang on about on UKPR? It was clear you didn't know the system very well and perhaps have finally realised that DSR can help a bit but isn't going to be anywhere near the scale required and that grid level solutions are required (both for day-day and between seasons)? Or are you referring to "doesn't know the system very well" to not only our National Grid operator but the operator of every grid in the entire World - in both the present and the future tense? Of course I expect you think you know more than them (and perhaps that an interconnecter is a fuel type). I assume the two likes you got are for comic value. Don't encourage him. He's clearly a Danny. I'm not unhiding comments to see quite where 'CCGT gaming the system' led to misrepresentation of data but it does show that if someone doesn't understand the issues or the data then it's probably why they usually avoid numbers. Grid level solutions will need to do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to minimising balancing costs (intra-day and inter-season) but it is especially strange that smart(er) demand side users using batteries and other 'shifting' methods of usage have been 'forgotten' by our resident troll. Individual DSR already makes a small contribution (hard to measure) to reducing balancing costs and with more BEVs and a 'Consumer Transformation' then they will make a substantial impact on reducing balancing costs compared to the 'Falling Short' (aka 'Climate Delay) plausible future scenarios. The issue with Interconnectors is that they make an already complicated and hard to predict system even more complicated and harder to predict. That is great for those who can offer Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR, not to be confused with storage) and know that any grid provider will always err on the side of caution. To game the system then CCGT suppliers have several tricks they use (see colin post and previous comments) and interconnecters are an 'enabler' for some of those tricks but interconnectors are not a fuel type so the table in NG's MBSS report is meaningless. One huge irony, that should be obvious, but is perhaps not. The less grid level storage (short-term intra-day and long-term inter-season) that we have then the higher the future costs of balancing the grid. Great for those 'vested interests' who can game the current system but a crap outcome for UK businesses and consumers. NB The 'current' problem is mostly 'excess demand' which has increased due to the problems with French nuclear. In the future the problem will be a combination of more prolonged and frequent periods of 'excess supply' as well as some periods of 'excess demand'. We need to plan for the future, not the past. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 12, 2022 13:51:32 GMT
Trevor - glad you are entertained, but from your comments, you've made it clear that you don't really understand much of what you are posting about. I'm not quite sure you've understood the point being made here, although I thought it was pretty obvious. Mr Poppy - "Add in EV charging points and 'solar parking' is a great idea for a lot of places. Solar is also an excellent energy provider for places whose seasonal climate means they use a lot of air-conditioning (AC) during the most sunny months (eg Southern Europe, most of the USA, etc) . The question for places that get less sun, and don't need AC, is if you deploy a lot of solar, then what do you do for those long, colder, Winter months when the sun doesn't shine very much?" I would say that this is a somewhat simplistic analysis of the role of solar, and it suggests someone who isn't experienced in the renewables field. The idea of 'solar carparks' flagged up by leftieliberal is excellent, and I have to say not new. I've been involved in a project looking at just this option, with another one likely to start in the new year. The issue about 'what to do in the winter months' is valid, in general terms, but as with everything, you need to consider this within the wider system. Car park PV is more often than not associated with a specific building, so in the case of the project I have previously been engaged on, we were looking at a supermarket carpark. The site has high electricity demands, particularly in summer, when air conditioning and refrigeration are the main drivers, so there were no real grid connection issues as the supply could largely be accommodated 'behind the meter'. Such sites often tend to be very good fits for those sites that have higher summer power demand than in winter. Alongside this, the idea that PV works best in 'sunny' countries is a bit simplistic. You do tend to get more power, obviously, and overall that can make the economics better, subject to local market conditions, but the impact of seasonal balancing can be overstated. Using the EU PVGIS tool, a PV installation in Paris is likely to get about 12% more solar output than an identical site in London on an annual basis, but if you look at the average monthly energy production from the system, and then work out the annual variation in output, you'll find that the two systems are remarkably close. In Paris, the deviation from the monthly average is from 47% - 142%, whereas for London it is from 37% - 125%, so actually less seasonal variation. On top of that, as previously explained, the UK has a great seasonal balance of renewable resource already, with the wind and solar, which already translates into a remarkably stable seasonal total renewable output with far more limited seasonal peaks and troughs than many seem to appreciate. Based on a more in depth analysis, the role of PV is actually at least as relevant for countries like the UK than for many areas with higher annual irradiation for this reason. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 13, 2022 9:33:46 GMT
I've tried to tease out some numbers for the amount (GW) of grid-level batteries UK would need to no avail so I'll try 'devil's advocate' and say NONE, ZERO, NULL.
The interesting issue leading on from consumer Demand Side Response (DSR) is that we can trust in the people to do all the short-term (intra-day to intra-week) storage so why should the grid provide it?
Some 'hypothetical' numbers (fairly close to actual/predictions but don't get bogged down by the 2dp stuff)
In 2030 (a convenient milestone to use for planning what we need to start building today).
BEV in UK: 6,000,000 with average of 40kWh batteries capable of 150miles and needing to be charged once per week for about 8,000miles/annum (obviously a lot of variation in the averages but that should actually help if all the users are 'smart')
That would give 240GWh of BEV short-term storage with a once a week cycle = 34.3GWh per day
The overnight 'surplus' electricity period is roughly 7hrs so that is 5GW of demand to soak up that 'surplus' (and note the current variation between day-night is more than that)
So 'trust the people' and allow the uptake in BEVs to do all the work in creating the short-term storage capacity that UK needs. Why build any grid-level batteries at all? Especially as from 2030 onwards we'd see even more BEVs on the road.
NB1 I personally would not 'trust the people' to that extent but I'll play devil's advocate for illustrative purposes to show the 'future uncertainty' issues that are holding us back. Some people think consumers will do almost all the work to balance the grid and minimise balancing costs and hence are reticent to approve any massive capital expenditure (or provide taxpayer/bill payer assistance for Capex costs). Why build expensive grid level battery capacity (or more pumped storage) if you'd rarely, if ever, need to use it? It doesn't make economic sense.
NB2 If you want to play 'devil's advocate' in reverse then you can highlight what would happen if 'panic charging' happened. Weather will become an even more important factor in the price of electricity and 'smart' users would know that. So if the 6million BEV owners hear we're going to have 7days+nights worth of cold, low wind weather in early Jan'31 then who wants to risk not having their car battery full to the brim before Monday morning? So instead of 5GW of demand for 34.3GWh of storage on Sunday night (and each night of the week) the grid is overloaded with up to* 35GW of demand to 'fill' all* 240GWh of capacity. What price would you pay for electricity on Sunday night if you thought that was your last chance to get enough juice in your car for getting you to/from work the following week, or the kids to/from school, etc? You'd pay pretty much whatever you had to pay and as quickly as you could knowing that at some point we'd collectively run out. People are selfish and can't be trusted. Smart for the individual is not 'smart' for the collective (Keynes paradox of thrift).
* OK drop that in half as not everyone would have a totally empty battery to refill but the numbers are still frightening and we have seen 'panic buying' in the recent past for petrol/diesel so no pretending it doesn't exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2022 14:00:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 13, 2022 16:41:23 GMT
Mr Poppy - "Some people think consumers will do almost all the work to balance the grid and minimise balancing costs and hence are reticent to approve any massive capital expenditure (or provide taxpayer/bill payer assistance for Capex costs)." Who has ever said that Trevor? Don't be shy. Give us the names, the sourced quotes. I'll take references, even if you don't understand them (again). Or is this just more of your bullshit? I've never seen anyone in the energy sector say anything remotely like that, and no one on UKPR 1 or 2 has ever said anything that could plausibly be argued to mean this. You've just made it up. That's what children do. It's horseshit. Total, complete, horseshit.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 13, 2022 17:24:22 GMT
Mr Poppy Very good to see bi-lateral/multi-lateral energy deals emerging with Sunak's premiership :- ... Coalitions of the willing and able. Hhhmmm... OK, yes, good to see sovereign nations looking out for themselves rather than working via Brussels ('twas ever thus) but I hope it is very clear who is benefitting most from doing a 'help each other out' on energy deal (not UK, well other than possibly brief periods Jan-Mar) France will eventually solve their nuclear problem but EDF have had to pay out compensation* for 'forward contracts' that they haven't been able to fulfil - they need our electricity exports and I've posted all the links and data to show that. Germany know they're going to need our LNG infrastructure and the pipelines to Netherlands/Belgium to help fill their storage again next year. In both cases that is costing UK businesses and consumers ££ on their bills so I hope Rishi is getting 'quid pro quo' in other areas. Below is a link showing the history of Octopus Agile pricing for my region. There was a very small window of -ve prices this month (I posted that info the other day) but, due to exports to France, then our grid has been in 'excess demand' for far more than it would have otherwise have been. That has meant we're been burning more gas (nice for CCGT suppliers) but the economics of owning a BEV haven't been very good this year, given BEV batteries need to replaced periodically. agileprices.co.uk/?region=A Some folks in NG and HMG (eg Kwarteng in the past) put a lot of faith in 'interconnectors' but they add to the complexity and uncertainty in the system. IMO they have a role, but a small role. I appreciate what day it is but 'charity begins at home' and I'm sure Germany can understand a 'mercantile approach' especially given why we collectively got into this mess of such high energy prices in the first place (ie Germany's former reliance on 'cheap' Russian gas). * Could have worded that better. It is losses to EDF's bottom line as explained in FT piece which I'll repost www.ft.com/content/a9966ad5-e1a2-4bed-b702-ca662f0b44c0 |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 13, 2022 17:58:10 GMT
Follow up, again using 'illustrative' but rounded numbers for 2030 plausible scenario From my 9:33am then we might need anywhere from 0-20GW (in/out flow) of additional short-term storage (grid batteries, additional pumped hydro) with 0-150GWh of capacity. So take some considering building 1GW/6GWh worth of grid batteries. How do the numbers look? Assumptions. A/ There is a 20p kWh 'arbitrage' (net of various losses, etc) between day+night prices of electricity = £200,000 GWh. B/ Due to the intra-day supply-demand imbalance then there are 6hrs per night to charge battery and 6hrs during the day to sell it back to the grid So the 'theoretical' max revenue = £200,000 x 6 x 365 = £438million That is clearly unrealistic so below is a quick look at plausible scenarios using a CAP/FLOOR approach Best case: 200 days x 5hrs = £200million ( Revenue CAP) Worst case: 100 days x 5hrs = £100million ('guaranteed' FLOOR of supply) Provided £100million/annum covers the investors cost then they'll build 1GW/6GWh of grid batteries. You get into a 'tragedy of the commons' situation though if say 20 investors want a piece of that action. As the grid operator you'd find it very expensive to ensure they all got the 'guaranteed' minimum. So you don't allow 20, you 'auction' for 5-10 (which could be 1GW per year, broken into some regional allocations for the next 7yrs) To ensure we don't have to pay grid battery providers for under-utilisation then there will need to be a 'pecking order' and some centrally imposed 'rationing' supply limits that ensure BEV owners are 'smart' for the collective good. NG can plan for that and use a rolling contract for grid battery operators where they will always get the 'guaranteed' minimum (and probably a lot more, provided we don't get into another prolonged period of bailing out the French). There will also need to be 'inspired guesses' about how much grid batteries we will need (5-10GW/30-60GWh) and some 'merging' between short-term (intra-day) and long-term storage (inter-season) options. The seasons are fairly predictable (with confidence limits) but quite a bit of variation so just as well UK (et al) have a Hydrogen Strategy - although 'words' need 'action'. NB 'Revenue Cap' is in bold as that is the missing link in much of the current approach, notably for the CCGT suppliers who have been gaming the system and love making the grid more complicated and more unpredictable. We'll still need them for 'peaker plants' (hopefully converted to run on hydrogen or at least a blend of 20% hydrogen) but they'll ramp up the 'fear' of black-outs etc to ensure we pay to keep a lot of them on stand-by. They obviously don't like storage, not short-term, not long-term. Storage is 'bad' for those who are currently gaming the system. Well sorry chaps (and it is mostly chaps), we're wise to the game and play time will soon be over (assuming the rumours of change see the new/rewriting of contracts to put UK businesses and consumers first). Boo hoo for the 'vested interests' and 'Climate Delayers' the New Model is coming |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 13, 2022 18:22:33 GMT
Mr Poppy - "There is a 20p kWh 'arbitrage' (net of various losses, etc) between day+night prices of electricity = £200,000 GWh." Really? Not sure anyone who knows the energy market would ever make an assumption like that, even for a fun illustration. If we ever have a 20p/kWh arbitrage between peak and off peak price for anything more than a very short term episode then the UK is well and truly f@cked. Also perhaps worth pointing out that the idea of 'day+night' pricing differential is rather quaint. It really doesn't work like that.
|
|
but we've also been exporting a load of electricity to nos amis. 
