Energy Markets and Net Zero

[Mr Poppy]

A quickie on the 'vested interest', climate delaying, CCGT gamers. Can't find a great published source but below covers the issue of a lot of the current 32GW capacity reaching the end of it's lifespan in the coming decade and why signing up long-term LNG imports is a worry as it creates a reluctance to change.

Those bandits will obviously want to extend their contracts and extend lifespans or even justify the building of new CCGT. I accept we will continue to need some CCGT (hopefully converted to a rising % of green hydrogen) but we won't need 32GW. 10-20GW from 2030 should do it ITCO* and I appreciate NG need to err on the side of caution but 'spare capacity' costs money and no need for way too much. Hence the importance of storage so those bandits can't keep playing their games and ripping off UK businesses and consumers.

www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2017/11/27/10167860/-dash-for-gas-era-of-uk-ccgts-faces-crunch-decade/

* In The Collectives Opinion (and we have some inside sources  ) 

[Mr Poppy]

Brown's PFI turned pretty toxic and whilst I like the ideas that Rachel is coming up with then the question, especially now that BoE have chopped down the Magic Money Tree (QE), is how to fund it - without 'scaring' the markets?

- £8bn ‘national wealth fund’ for stuff like “clean” steel plants, battery factories and “renewable ready” (free)ports (with a further breakdown given)

- also £28bn of funding for “capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade.”

Repost: labourlist.org/2022/09/reeves-announces-8bn-national-wealth-fund-for-green-investment/

NB quite a lot of that is just 'continuing' New Model Tory Plan A, but increasing the amounts (eg the current ATF is up to £1bn*, Rachel wants £2bn just for gigafactories) so it is not going to be all 'new money'. 

IMO a 'tweak' of the fiscal rules on investment and mostly using 'guarantees' to 'crowd-in' private sector to do the heavy lifting is required but how to ensure that is not considered to be PFIv2 and isn't going to put future taxpayers on the hook as we found out to our cost with PFIv1**? Pension funds (see comment on main thread and a link I'll pop on the Pension thread and below***) can and should fund a lot of illiquid, long-term investments and that is a 'work in progress' so Rachel's timing might be quite fortunate. If the rate of return on the investments is 'guaranteed' and decent (eg 4%+ possibly with some 'risk') then 'Green Bonds' (or preference shares or similar) can be bought by Pension funds instead of IL Gilts. A lot of detail changes required but New Model Tory Plan A have already laid a lot of the groundwork. I'm optimistic for sure, roll on GE'24.

* www.apcuk.co.uk/automotive-transformation-fund/
** The great PFI heist: The real story of how Britain's economy has been left high and dry by a doomed economic philosophy
www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/pfi-banks-barclays-hsbc-rbs-tony-blair-gordon-brown-carillion-capita-financial-crash-a8202661.html
*** www.gov.uk/government/consultations/broadening-the-investment-opportunities-of-defined-contribution-pension-schemes/consultation-broadening-the-investment-opportunities-of-defined-contribution-pension-schemes

[leftieliberal]

Coventry becomes the second UK city to host a battery farm: www.edf-re.uk/media-centre/coventry-becomes-the-second-uk-city-to-host-an-energy-superhub-as-edf-renewables-uk-starts-work-on-a-new-50-mw-100-mwh-battery/

"Construction at the battery site commenced in August, with it expected to be live next year. Energy Superhub Coventry will replicate the core model that was rolled out by EDF Renewables UK in Oxford earlier this year and is one of up to 40 similar projects it is developing across the country."

Kudos to this French-owned electricity generator. 50 MW/100 MWh multiplied by 40 = 2 GW/ 4 GWh so good for short-term (a few hours) storage.

[Mr Poppy]

Some additional links from EDF

www.edf-re.uk/what-we-do/battery-storage/
www.edf-re.uk/what-we-do/hydrogen/

It would be nice if EDF got the French nuclear fleet fully operational again. Very rare we get any 'spare' electricity at the moment as anyone with a BEV can tell you - but that will change in the near future 

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 15, 2022 12:21:48 GMT leftieliberal said:

50 MW/100 MWh multiplied by 40 = 2 GW/ 4 GWh so good for short-term (a few hours) storage.

Thank for the link and a real World example. As I know you know then Dinorwig has a ratio of about 5 (1.8GW/ 9GWh) 

For 'lithium-ion' v 'pumped hydro' then the main cost of the former is the 'lithium-ion' (ie the storage amount) and hence the lower ratio. Also "2hrs" roughly meets the optimal "peak demand" time and that will likely be the dominant supply/demand imbalance issue for the lifespan of a grid battery coming online soon. In a few years "surplus supply" (usually between 11pm-5am with some daily/seasonal variation) will also be a significant factor but, for lithium-ion, then you'd probably still build to a low ratio (due to raw material costs) but by having lots of them then you can adjust your input/output to smooth out and profit from "excess supply" and "peak demand" 

I hope to see a lot more storage (short-term and long-term) being built in the coming years, even if it is the "French" building some of it - we can always "windfall tax" them later I suppose 

PS A 'friend' suggested I add this link:
Capacity Market contracts awarded to more than 2GW of battery storage in UK and Italy
www.energy-storage.news/capacity-market-contracts-awarded-to-more-than-2gw-of-battery-storage-in-uk-and-italy/

[Mr Poppy]

Hunt needs to tread very carefully WRT to 'Windfall Tax' tomorrow. Likes of BP and Shell clearly didn't 'read the room' and as below points out, there are several foreign owned 'rent seekers' who could+should pay more tax in UK but he needs to be very careful (and Rishi-style creative) on ensuring we keep seeing large, hopefully even larger, investment in renewables and energy storage (as well as N.Sea O&G for 'just transition'). The medium-long term solution is to 'rewrite' some current contracts and learn from the mistakes in new contracts for the future. 

Hunt risks further energy bill damage if windfall tax proves punitive
news.sky.com/story/hunt-risks-further-energy-bill-damage-if-windfall-tax-proves-punitive-12748834

[Deleted]

Nov 16, 2022 14:21:52 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Hunt needs to tread very carefully WRT to 'Windfall Tax' tomorrow. Likes of BP and Shell clearly didn't 'read the room' and as below points out, there are several foreign owned 'rent seekers' who could+should pay more tax in UK but he needs to be very careful (and Rishi-style creative) on ensuring we keep seeing large, hopefully even larger, investment in renewables and energy storage (as well as N.Sea O&G for 'just transition'). The medium-long term solution is to 'rewrite' some current contracts and learn from the mistakes in new contracts for the future. 

Hunt risks further energy bill damage if windfall tax proves punitive
news.sky.com/story/hunt-risks-further-energy-bill-damage-if-windfall-tax-proves-punitive-12748834

I thought Sunak's Windfall Tax contained a break for "Investment" ?

[Danny]

Nov 13, 2022 9:33:46 GMT Mr Poppy said:

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.

The purpose of grid level batteries would be to provide electricity when the wind isnt blowing. At least as things stand now, the grid cannot draw energy back out of car batteries, so this cannot provide a store of energy for calm weather.

Its likely we can sort something out to encourage people to charge their vehicles in the middle of the night or whenever there is a surplus of energy, but that will really only optimise use of surplus energy. It cannot help when there isnt enough to keep the lights on and the electric blast furnaces running.

Dont forget, electric vehicles means a huge jump in demand for electricity, as does substituting it for gas heating. We will need way more than is generated now.

Likely there needs to be enough installed capacity of renewables generation to meet demand 24 hours a day most of the year. Surplus would be directed to storage for calm days, and utilised either for something like hydrogen production as an alternative fuel, or for industries which can operate with very intermittent energy.

The simplest model how to make this work would seem to be simply install a capacity which is well above normal demand so that most lulls are dealt with without having to do anything else. You cannot do that if generators are working on a model of being paid for not producing energy. You might guarantee them a fair share of the total demand, but not for generating nothing. Fundamentally the infrastructure is cheap, we need to build a lot of it.

We also need to open up the grid as a transport system for private deals transmitting energy across the uk between willing buyers and willing sellers.

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 16, 2022 15:42:16 GMT colin said:

Nov 16, 2022 14:21:52 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Hunt needs to tread very carefully WRT to 'Windfall Tax' tomorrow. Likes of BP and Shell clearly didn't 'read the room' and as below points out, there are several foreign owned 'rent seekers' who could+should pay more tax in UK but he needs to be very careful (and Rishi-style creative) on ensuring we keep seeing large, hopefully even larger, investment in renewables and energy storage (as well as N.Sea O&G for 'just transition'). The medium-long term solution is to 'rewrite' some current contracts and learn from the mistakes in new contracts for the future. 

Hunt risks further energy bill damage if windfall tax proves punitive
news.sky.com/story/hunt-risks-further-energy-bill-damage-if-windfall-tax-proves-punitive-12748834

I thought Sunak's Windfall Tax contained a break for "Investment" ?

The current one does, yes. I totally support tax breaks for investment. Unfortunately likes of BP and Shell 'exploited' that by not 'reading the room'. Had they been smart and reinvested their 'obscene' profits in renewables and storage in UK then Rishi+Hunt wouldn't have needed to get the 'naughty stick' back out and give them a bigger whack. The really dumb move from them was saying their best 'investment' (use of spare cash) was to buy back their own shares. See previous posts but they effectively said they wanted to get whacked a lot harder. If they can't do the right thing with their spare cash then HMT will take it and spend it for them (I hope). 

So the question to be answered tomorrow is who gets walloped, what they get walloped on and for how long the walloping is set to last. Rishi can do 'nuance' but he also needs to be 'popular'. My concern is that he wants a headline and instead of a 'naughty stick' he brings out a big hammer that sees everything and everyone as a 'nail' that needs to be hit - hard.  

[Danny]

Nov 15, 2022 12:14:24 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Brown's PFI turned pretty toxic

Surely PFI was a conservatve invention under Major, or possibly even Thatcher?

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 16, 2022 15:42:16 GMT colin said:

Nov 16, 2022 14:21:52 GMT Mr Poppy said:

I thought Sunak's Windfall Tax contained a break for "Investment" ?

Some links. The previous Energy Price Levy details. See: "The new 80% Investment Allowance..."

www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-living-support/energy-profits-levy-factsheet-26-may-2022  

and note they said: "The levy does not apply to the electricity generation sector..."

Hunt 'rolled the pitch' so no big surprises other than 45% v the rumour of 40%. Still waiting on some specifics but a link with update:

renews.biz/81887/uk-to-impose-45-windfall-tax-on-renewable-generators/

After a brief dip the likes of SSE, Centrica, Drax, etc are all up so you could say Hunt had overdone "Project Fear" (or perhaps for the majority of UKPR2 say that he hasn't taken enough tax from them). The 'smart' thing for all generators to do now would be to "decide" to make very little taxable profit for the next few years (which will mean less tax revenue compared to the 'guess' but will mean a lot more investment). 

PS Modest tangent but there were rumours of a lot of other sectors getting hit by a 'Windfall Profit' - even banks at one point. Lloyds is currently up 3.5% on the day. We need the banks to provide capital, not hit mortgage holders to recoup profits lost to windfall taxes, etc. So whacking them would have been stupid. The biggest benefit of Hunt is hopefully now increased certainty with markets and politics becoming boring. Businesses can then make decisions without such high risk of 'external factors'. Fixed rate mortgages, etc should also come down (always a bit of a 'catch-up' and due to the 'option' component then rates are set higher if there is high volatility in the markets)

[Danny]

Nov 17, 2022 15:17:08 GMT Mr Poppy said:

We need the banks to provide capital, not hit mortgage holders to recoup profits lost to windfall taxes, etc. So whacking them would have been stupid.

If you think banks would give cheaper mortgages because they are allowed to make bigger profits on some other arm of their business, then I think you misunderstand how capitalism works.

[Mr Poppy]

Illustrative example of the 'win-win-win-win' of using some Insurance and Pension funds assets for Green investment. I'd almost go as far as say that we're turning them partially into 'sovereign wealth funds'. I'll pop on the Issue Specific thread as folks can easily find it again later if they want to.

Currently Insurance and Pension funds* have to hold a lot of ultra-safe, ultra-liquid, very low return assets - such as IL Gilts

26yr IL Gilt currently has a 'running yield' of a risibly low 0.12% and is conveniently (for illustrative purposes) priced close to par. It's coupon and redemption value are index linked to inflation.
www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/t/treasury-0.125-10082048-index-linked

If someone buys an annuity then they lock in a fixed income stream (sometimes with an annual % or index linked increase). That is as 'illiquid' as it gets as the insurance company have you locked in until you die (when, depending on the type of annuity, your heirs might get some cash). The provider of the annuity does not need ultra-liquid assets (they need a range of assets, but overall they don't need to be as liquid as EU's Solvency II insists)

So why not allow Insurance companies (and pension funds) to invest in more 'illiquid' assets that have a higher return and do 'societal' good?

Most renewable and zero carbon energy investment want a/ some certainty on revenues (which HMG provides, some tweaking required IMO), b/ cheap source of finance, and have c/ a long 'lifespan' (ranging from replacement cycle of lithium-ion batteries, to new blades for wind farms, to new-new nuclear). They are hence perfect assets to 'match' against a chunk of the liabilities of insurance and pension funds. They can raise funds cheaper from the insurance and pension fund sector than they can from banks with what is akin to Green 'crowd source' funding but at a massive scale (££billions/annum of investment). The cost of capital will be a bit above IL Gilts but way below other sources of current/potential financing and the revenue stream of a renewable investment will very likely have some form of indexation in it (usually 'explicit' via govt contracts)

Some detail to sort out which is why it has taken this long to 'unshackle' UK but if we need to provide a stronger 'explicit' guarantee to the finance side (rather than 'implicit' guarantee provided by govt contracts on the revenues only) then OK. Let's 'Get It Done', for the good of UK 'policy holders-UK businesses-UK investment-Planet' and once UK has led the way then I'm pretty sure 'others' will follow.

Note I'm not saying all insurance or pension fund assets should go into Green investments, a lot of the investment should come from re-investment of revenues (huge tax incentives for Energy generators to do that).

However, for those like myself, who want a more urgent move to Net Zero (for UK and rWorld) then tapping into the ££billions of 'wealth funds' known as Insurance and Pension funds is a #nobrainer.

* Not going back into the recent DB Pension scheme issue again. LDI is complex and was over-used. The problem was never solvency and BoE could ensure the liquidity issue never happens again (as per the scheme for Energy markets).

[Mr Poppy]

PS to above. It's not just Green stuff that will benefit as one provider points out:

“This is a very welcome boost for UK investment. It means Aviva can invest in critical areas such as social housing, schools, hospitals and green energy projects.”

?

[Mr Poppy]

IMO (well not mine, but my sources) then, using current forward prices for gas, knowing some additional generator supplying is coming, hoping the French sort their Nuclear issue out pronto and taking into account some demand reduction then without the Energy Price Cap (EPC) then the 'typical household' would pay around £3,500 for April-June'23.

Cornwall Insight reckon £3,739p/a*

Going further out then the forward prices drop further, more supply will come on-stream and more demand reduction is likely => an 'unadjusted' cap will probably drop <=£3,000 in 2024. 

NB I've never been a fan of the EPC but IF (huge IF) the future turns out as per current forward prices (which can be locked in) and future supply/demand adjustments are likely to occur (much of which is already being built WRT to supply side) then the ££billions being spent by future taxpayers to help current taxpayers on Energy bills via the EPC will likely drop to zero in 2024. Huge uncertainty on that of course, as OBR made clear in Box4 of their analysis y'day. 

[Mr Poppy]

Useful link with loads of data, sources, etc:

Dataset
National fiscal policy responses to the energy crisis

www.bruegel.org/dataset/national-policies-shield-consumers-rising-energy-prices

PS I thought they'd made a mistake on Germany by showing no petrol/diesel price intervention but it turns out that the intervention was limited to 3mths and has now expired. 
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/germany-to-monitor-fuel-prices-closely-after-tax-cut-expires

[lens]

Nov 11, 2022 22:00:20 GMT deleted2 said:

Nov 11, 2022 15:36:56 GMT lens said:

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).

The point of paying generators to *NOT* generate is fundamentally to pay such when they CAN generate, but it's wished that they don't. So no - you don't pay solar providers not to generate when it's night, and you don't pay wind generators on days with no wind. In the case of other generators - and electrolysis equipment - the most effective use of capital plant is to utilise it as close to 24/7 as possible (allowing for maintenance etc). Which is why the comparison with solar is just plain ridiculous in this context.

What Lexiteer (who doesn't seem even able to decide on a name....?) just can't comprehend is that they can't have their cake and eat it. They can't use (cheap?) "surplus" electricity...... AND have high electrolyser utilisation! Utilise the electrolysis equipment more than a limited amount and the electricity will no longer be "surplus" - and will be priced accordingly.

Which may happen. With a green hydrogen market there, it may be decided to run the electrolysis plant 22 hours a day......... but then forget about the electricity required being "surplus", let alone "cheap surplus". That may happen, may happen that wind farms are built specifically to supply electrolysis plant. But let's drop the pretence that cheap hydrogen can be a easy way to soak up this supposed "surplus" electricity - it can't, because even if the electricity is then cheap, the under utilised plant will counter such cost.

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 22, 2022 0:17:13 GMT lens said:

Nov 11, 2022 22:00:20 GMT deleted2 said:

Luckily those who are moving forward with Net Zero understand what 'Economically Viable' means and how to get there* (and no that is not 24h/365days as no component of the overall current or future 'optimal' Energy system, other perhaps new nuclear, runs 100% of the time)

For someone who claims to want Green Hydrogen to replace Grey/Blue Hydrogen then you appear very much in favour of 'Climate Delay' and don't want to achieve the necessary economies of scale for Green Hydrogen to replace Grey/Blue Hydrogen (as well as potentially have a lot more uses).

* See the 3 components:
- The cost of electrolysers will go down
- Time periods when low- or zero-cost prices for electricity generated by renewable sources are available will increase**
- Carbon emissions will be penalised
www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1578773/green-hydrogen-economically-viable-2035-researchers-claim

Some folks reckon 2030
www.reuters.com/business/energy/wind-could-produce-affordable-green-hydrogen-by-2030-siemens-gamesa-says-2021-06-09/

** Purely for illustrative purposes, given the 'economically viable' will depend on the 3 factors mentioned in the first article then 80% of the day x 60% of the year = 50% (rounded). For some sunny+windy weeks in the Summer, notably by teaming up with short-term storage, then it will likely be 100% of the day but then in cold, cloudy, low wind periods in the Winter it will be 0%. Provided it is 'Economically viable' then 50%ish could be enough but UK and 'other' govts need to start planning and building for 2030/35 today to stop the 'Climate Delay' approach that you seem to favour.  

[alec]

Mr Poppy - I think your tone with lens is unnecessarily unpleasant. I see no evidence that they are "clueless of the future". It's just that lens, along with heaps of other experts working in the field, actually take a different view regarding the level of application for hydrogen in the future energy system. Let's talk about that, but let's do it without the childish unpleasantness?

For what it's worth, I think you are overplaying the second of your three components. The times of low/no cost electricity will increase, but that will have the effect of making every energy storage option far more competitive, and if some of them start from a position of better economic viability than hydrogen, then that means the boost to hydrogen will be blunted by the boost given to these other developing technologies.

Sensible heat storage technologies are developing very rapidly, with some of these perfectly capable of operating on seasonal scale. They are currently cheaper than hydrogen production and have a far higher round trip efficiency. There will be plenty of demand for hydrogen in industry and parts of the transport sector, and that's where I suspect dedicated renewable generation projects will become established.

Given the difficulty with grid connection and distribution, I can foresee conditions whereby a hydrogen supplier develops and upstream relationship with a renewable generator (probably as direct owner) with the primary aim of the generator being to produce power for green hydrogen. This could be done without any grid connection at all, saving a considerable capital sum. More likely would be a capacity limited two way connection, allowing a small amount of import/export so the scheme could operate in the balancing market at some level, but while retaining the offer of certainty of hydrogen production, which is what the steel and industrial sectors will be demanding.

[Mr Poppy]

Nothing especially new on 'Energy and Net Zero' in Sir Keir's speech but it is certainly worth him repeating and reinforcing the message to both the audience in front of him at CBI conf and everyone else listening in for clues as to the intentions of our next PM:

(A) "Green Prosperity Plan..

A plan to make Britain a green growth superpower – to invest in wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen, green steel and carbon capture... take advantage of the opportunities in clean British power and turn them into good, secure, well-paid British jobs"

He doesn't specifically mention Qatar LNG but does point out: "Clean British power is cheaper than imported fossil fuels. Nine times* cheaper"

labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-speech-to-the-confederation-of-british-industry-conference-2022/

* Happy to let that one slide. 'Currently' and with various other caveats to get to 'nine times'. However, it is certainly a lot cheaper so the 'economic viability' can not be questioned. Just a matter of getting on with it.

[Mr Poppy]

Thought I'd post another useful link on the Issue Specific thread. Folks can have a look ahead at the weather forecast to see when they might next get cheap (or even -ve) priced electricity (eg to charge up a BEV that they don't need to use often but usually need to charge once/week). With the French nuclear fleet issue then that has been very rare this year and looking at the wind forecast for the rest of the week (very low MPH and not the 'best' wind direction for most of GB) then not looking like much chance this week either 

www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/wind-map#?

[Mr Poppy]

leftieliberal A report you might have already read but will probably find interesting as it focusses on "Distributed Energy Resources (DERs)" and how to integrate them into (smart) National Grids. The current GB approach of 'bolt-on' and deal with the issues later is very slow and when problems arise (eg solar or BEVs) we stall roll out/uptake by removing incentives.

Also see on p5 that UK has slipped to 4th in the World for "attractiveness of their renewable energy investment and deployment opportunities". I'd question some of the ways US and China "boost" their attractiveness and although it is understandable that Germany has "increased attractiveness" it is disappointing that UK has "decreased attractiveness" - something that Sir Keir+Rachel+Miliband will need to fix. 

Details for UK are on p8. China is much bigger than UK of course but they do mention:
"Offshore wind featured prominently in the government’s Made in Britain energy strategy, which set an ambitious target of 50GW by 2030, a significant increase from its current capacity of 12GW. New planning reforms are expected to slash approval times from four years to one. Floating wind will also be accelerated, with a target of 5GW... A total of 93 green energy projects were given the go-ahead in the scheme, aiming to deliver nearly 11GW of renewable energy that will come online in 2023 and 2024... Investment flows have also been strong, with the UK Infrastructure Bank announcing a £22b (US$24.9b) investment plan in June. Renewable energy will be its largest investment sector, with funding earmarked for low-carbon hydrogen, energy storage and grid networks.16 In July, the UK government also unveiled two hydrogen investment strategies — the Hydrogen Business Model and the Net Zero Hydrogen Fund — that will offer subsidy options and grant funding."

References (links) for above are all given on p34-35.

So it's not that CON HMG have done nothing, they've laid the groundwork and made some improvements for sure. We just need to move even faster now. I expect LAB will push more 'onshore wind' and very likely pass planning reforms to slash approval times for other types of 'onshore' solutions that you've mentioned in the past. Where I expect we (and CON v LAB approach) will disagree is on the need for N.Sea O&G for 'just transition' - something Rishi needs to prioritise in the time he has left.

assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/power-and-utilities/ey-recai-60-v2.pdf

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 15, 2022 12:21:48 GMT leftieliberal said:

Coventry becomes the second UK city to host a battery farm: www.edf-re.uk/media-centre/coventry-becomes-the-second-uk-city-to-host-an-energy-superhub-as-edf-renewables-uk-starts-work-on-a-new-50-mw-100-mwh-battery/
..

and there is more...

Europe’s biggest battery storage facility comes online near Hull.. The facility is 98MW/ 196MWh, adjacent to the National Grid’s electricity substation at Creyde Beck...proposed connection point (Pillswood) for the first two phases of the Dogger Bank wind farm. This facility will be the world’s largest offshore wind farm once completed, at 3.6GW

www.edie.net/europes-biggest-battery-storage-facility-comes-online-near-hull/

NB Whilst that is a big battery storage facility then it's 2hrs of storage. Useful for smoothing out intra-day peak demand (roughly a 2hr period in the early evening) and recharging during periods of excess supply, it is just one small piece of the overall 'optimal' future grid that we need.

[Danny]

Nov 26, 2022 9:17:10 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Europe’s biggest battery storage facility comes online near Hull.. [/b

I guess the metals to make the batteries most likely came from China, rather then Europes largest source of same which is currently in the ground Under Russian occupying forces in Ukraine.

[alec]

Mr Poppy - the battery storage facility is interesting news, but it's worth bearing in mind that the official figures and National Grid data only covers the part of the generation mix that participates in the balancing market.

This data - www.gov.uk/government/statistics/solar-photovoltaics-deployment shows that we have got 4,100MW of rooftop PV via the FITs scheme, little of which is going to be within the balancing system. Since March 2019 when FITs ended there will have been many more systems build so the available capacity is likely to be far higher than this. Increasingly, battery systems are being added, so if we could assume currently perhaps 6GW of small scale PV production it wouldn't be too hard to start to imagine the potential battery storage capacity if these were all hooked up to storage systems, with automatic systems to engage with grid balancing.

There really is huge potential in the small scale consumer market within the energy system, if National Grid got organised.

[Mr Poppy]

I mentioned Securitisation, banking reform, Green bonds (and Solvency II) on the main thread and a background piece on 'Securitisation' (with a 'z' in N.America) in the context of Green investment:

Climate Bonds: Securitization

www.climatebonds.net/projects/models/securitization

Over zealous 'reform' post the Financial Crisis chucked the baby out with the bath water. NINJA loans, dodgy CMOs and some lenders (eg Northern Rock) failing to match their funding to their liabilities caused the Financial crisis and hence 'securitisation' got a bad name and regulators (eg Brussels) went OTT.

The very first step is lots of lending for Green investment, those loans are then 'pooled' and securitised as Green bonds. Then insurance and pension funds buy those bonds (assets) to match their liabilities (eg annuities). There of course needs to be some regulation but not the OTT, anti-growth stuff that Brussels came up with. UK needs to lead the way on freeing up the financial markets to get more money flowing into Green investments.

Money can make the wind turbines turn round

[Mr Poppy]

Did someone recently say batteries combined with green hydrogen production would make a great green team? I was thinking more of having them somewhat separate but could also combine them both in one unit - the Battolyser: 

Rotterdam Port to house Battolyser plant for green hydrogen production
www.reuters.com/business/energy/rotterdam-port-house-battolyser-plant-green-hydrogen-production-2022-11-28/
(note the cycles per day will depend on the mix of wind, solar with perhaps nuclear in the background as well)

More info on the tech:
Battolyser® offers a dual-purpose energy storage solution with a combined battery and electrolyser function that improves overall performance
www.battolysersystems.com/technology

NB Nickel-Iron batteries which are "Deployable at scale, due to abundant(cy)" and have other advantages for this specific type of use. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Rolls-Royce small modular reactors: Could SMRs be the solution for green hydrogen?

capital.com/rolls-royce-small-modular-reactors-smr-green-hydrogen

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Also just seen this in the Telegraph

“Surging energy costs will leave the European Union unable to attract battery plants in a blow to its electric car ambitions, a top Volkswagen executive has warned.

Thomas Schäfer, chief executive of Volkswagen Passenger Cars, said Germany and the EU were “rapidly losing their attractiveness and competitiveness” for so-called gigafactories as a result of sharp rises in the cost of power.

He added that EU bureaucracy and state aid rules risk hamstringing efforts to bring electricity and gas prices under control.

In a LinkedIn post, Mr Schäfer said: “Unless we manage to reduce energy prices in Germany and Europe quickly and reliably, investments in energy-intensive production or new battery cell factories in Germany and the EU will be practically unviable.””

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 28, 2022 19:04:54 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Rolls-Royce small modular reactors: Could SMRs be the solution for green hydrogen?

capital.com/rolls-royce-small-modular-reactors-smr-green-hydrogen

A pedant might mention that technically hydrogen from a nuclear source is 'pink' 

As someone who owns some RR shares on the basis of the exciting tech they are developing then I'm perhaps biased but it is great to see them trying to sell SMR's direct to an end user like Ineos. The article you posted covers some of the political aspects (SNP not keen on nuclear) but quite a few companies probably like the 'energy security' of 'always on' nuclear rather than reliance on intermittent and hence unreliable wind+solar.

Brucie Bonus: I'd take an inspired guess they would make their lecky available to the grid for the right price at certain times of year when it is dark early and not very windy (ie like tonight). Nice to run the electrolysers as much as possible but doesn't need to be 24/365. It would be very handy for the grid to have additional SMR capacity 'on call', although exactly how we pay for that is where BEIS need to start getting on with it and where politicians from Westminster and devolved nations (where applicable) need to agree to permission SMR builds. 

Miliband is a big fan of nuclear, although fortunately the tech has moved on in the last decade so we're not building a load of 'old' nuclear and facing lots of 'French' problems with that. Pretty sure that by GE'24 even the painfully slow CON HMG will have worked out the contract issues for 'new' nuclear and possibly for having some additional 'on call' capacity from folks like Ineos that are taking 'Energy Security' into their own hands. 

Thank you for posting the link. Interesting times!