Energy Markets and Net Zero

[Mr Poppy]

In relation to previous post then of course supply and demand are opposite sides of the same coin. So another "yes, and" when it comes to 'locational pricing' that is already happening (and arguably the better way for that part of "yes, and" to happen) is building high electricity demand facilities in locations with abundant cheap energy (often fully/partially 'off-grid' for various reasons) and not building them in places with grid constraint issues. So expect to see more of examples of:

Microsoft and Amazon scrap Irish data centre plans over power grid constraints
metro.co.uk/2022/08/24/microsoft-amazon-scrap-irish-data-centres-over-power-grid-constraints-17235104/

instead choosing places such as Kintyre and Moray West (scroll down to see their latest investments): 
AWS to Invest £1.8bn in the UK to Build and Operate Data Centers
dgtlinfra.com/aws-amazon-web-services-uk-data-centers/

Autonomous crypto mining is another opportunity but would head off into a tangent. Suffice to say current crypto mining could be a lot greener:

‘Green Bitcoin Mining’: The Big Profits In Clean Crypto
www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/08/02/green-bitcoin-mining-the-big-profits-in-clean-crypto/ 

[alec]

"...so I don't see the current NIMBY HMG wishing to break up the 'one nation' pricing approach.."

Worth bearing in mind that we don't actually have a 'one nation' pricing approach in practice. Quotes for prices are to a degree contingent on location already, but also National Grid ESO charges far more for generation connections in Scotland than further south, and in the SE is actually paying generators to connect. There are similar disparities with ongoing transmission fees.

The difference with the locational pricing concept is that the pricing system would be broken up into regional markets, which would indeed lead to differential market pressures. However, I find it very difficult to conceive that price signals will be sufficient to rectify the regional imbalances in generation. When you work out the power required in the SE, and then cross reference that with the available renewable generation, and indeed the required grid capacity to handle more location specific nuclear plant, it just doesn't really work. What would happen would be demand side responses, with high consumption users potentially moving to low energy cost areas, but even this might be quite limited to a few operators where energy costs are such that the marginal difference would outweigh the dramatic cost of relocation.

The potential for unforeseen consequences here is quite substantial, in a UK context. Scotland is where the renewable energy is concentrated, and London/SE will always be where there is a considerable power deficit. I don't really think anyone thinks those two fundamentals are likely to ever change. If we reduce incentives to renewable development in those areas where there is plenty of potential, and increase them in those areas with limited potential, by price signaling to the end user, if you get it wrong you will end up causing inflation in the south while limiting much needed generation capacity in the north, two things that would be bad.

NGESO is keen on this option, but why? The simple answer is that it lets a multi-billion pound profit making private sector monopoly network operator off the hook. Everyone else would have to adapt to a new market condition, while NGESO shareholders can continue to trouser vast dividends from the dysfunctional UK energy transmission network. If it leads to reduced renewables generation, what does NGESO care?

Instead, as lens suggests, spending appropriate capital investments on a proper system of interconnectors, way beyond the pitiful and slow development seen to date, and ending the penalties to renewable generators in the north, would seem a good way to make a start om maximising renewables and grid stability, and if that can then be matched with proper development policies for the north, rather than extremely crude energy price hikes, then we'd have something closer to an energy policy and regional development.

I think what we are seeing here is what we have previously seen from Trevor and some others; the apparent belief that National Grid ESO are actually trying to find the optimal configuration for the transmission system, rather than seeing their actual role, which is a massive and highly profitable company, largely owned by over-seas interests, that is constantly briefing to secure the interests of their own shareholders. Everything NGESO produces has to be seen in that context rather than swallowed whole as some gospel truth generated for the common good. This applies to the various scenarios links we keep seeing. Any scenario is feasible, but there are certain boundaries National Grid doesn't wish to cross, and each of them are boundaries that impose more cost and responsibility on....National Grid. So the simple and obvious solutions either don't appear or are significantly underplayed in the important sounding scenarios that are produced by the biggest single vested interest in the UK energy market. Quelle surprise, as they say in France.

Important to note that I'm not saying there isn't some potential role for locational pricing, but I personally rather doubt it will resolve the issues. Our issues are based on immutable geography, and the blame for the lack of solutions to date mainly reside at the door of a private transmission corporation that is good at making profits but awful at forward planning, and a government that doesn't have a working delivery strategy, with a hefty dose of regulatory capture thrown in.

[Mr Poppy]

Just in case anyone is interested (eg some occasional 'lurkers') then some Ofgem info.

Despite using different national grids* for the new Eastern HDVC links (2 x 2GW) between Scotland and England, they are not listed in the 'international' interconnectors that have already been approved and in varying stage of being complete

Denmark: 1.4GW (new), 2023
Ireland: +0.5GW, 2024
France: +2.8GW, 2024/5
Germany: 1.4GW (new), 2024
Norway: +1.4GW, 2025

See: Existing and future interconnector projects in: 
www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-policy-and-regulation/policy-and-regulatory-programmes/interconnectors

As already mentioned then I'm not a huge fan of all of the planned international (GB-rEurope) interconnectors but do appreciate some will be helpful (eg England-Norway). I'd much rather see intra-GB prioritised and ensure we don't rely on 'imports'. Some of the international ones are IMO 'vanity' projects (eg the Viking Link to Denmark, a country quite a long way by subsea cable but that usually gets very similar wind to East Coast of England). 
BEIS committed to “work with Ofgem, developers and our European partners to realise at least 18 GW of interconnector capacity by 2030”, over double the current capacity of 8.4 GW
www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-security-bill-factsheets/energy-security-bill-factsheet-multi-purpose-interconnectors

Also from Ofgem, something that I've already said the current HMG is very unlikely to go ahead with: Locational Pricing Assessment
www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/locational-pricing-assessment

Given 'Locational Pricing' is an option then it was potentially worth considering it but as leftieliberal 's article pointed out then it would only be a "yes, and" component and as per my previous posts then a better way for 'location' component to play a small role is via the kind of locational decisions already being made by data centre providers, etc. 

If I get time then I'll post some info and thoughts on how improved coordination of new electricity storage facilities could make far better use of current (and soon to be added) internal GB 'one nation' grid but since that is already a 'work in progress' then combined with other "yes, and"; an acceptance that no individual component in an optimal system will by itself be 'optimal'; and whether or not I can be bothered then maybe not. The future, increased role of BEVs does make 'planning' for grid level storage a bit tricky and will (IMO) require fundamental changes to electricity pricing for individuals but that is not an excuse for 'dither and delay' and for those who do keep themselves up to date with what is happening then, thankfully, there is a lot less 'dither and delay' than there used to be (although it is still too slow IMO - notably on SMR nuclear, most of which will use previous sites (in E&W, no new sites are needed in Scotland for obvious reasons**) and hence use existing transmission network, but the break between 'old-old' and 'new-new' nuclear could be a lot shorter if they 'get on with it').

* www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/Eastern%20HVDC%20-%20Decision%20on%20the%20project%27s%20Final%20Needs%20Case.pdf

** I didn't actually mean the 'politics' but the economics. It makes no sense to build even more generation capacity in Scotland given they will have so much 'excess' electricity that they need to export to England:
Energy strategy: No plans for new nuclear sites in Scotland...UK ministers want to install eight new reactors at existing sites
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61013732

[alec]

"(eg the Viking Link to Denmark, a country quite a long way by subsea cable but that usually gets very similar wind to East Coast of England)"

Meteorologically speaking this isn't very accurate. A simple whizz through on the sea level pressure charts here - www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/gfs gives a good indicative idea of the variation between these two regions, and you need to consider the wider grid position. The Denmark end of the connection is (obvs) connected to the Danish grid, which is connected to the Baltic region and Germany, etc etc. So the connection to Denmark isn't just to a wind region in Denmark, but to a continent spanning interconnected supranational grid.

The other point is that even in conditions of identical wind speeds in two regions, Denmark is in a different time zone, so their general peak demand pattern will be offset against the UK's by one hour, which is a long time in terms of grid management. So very well worth interconnecting. The more the merrier. Don't really understand why anyone would stand against this most basic fundamental of running a grid with a high level of renewables. I suspect it's a Brexit hang up.

[Mr Poppy]

Some additional info on changes in Scotland electricity generating capacity and the relevance to the 'one nation' approach.

Nuclear: Torness is scheduled to close in 2028, -1.2GW* 
Fossil Fuel: "There will be no significant fossil fuel generation remaining in Scotland following the closure of Peterhead CCGT" -1.2GW

www.nationalgrideso.com/research-publications/etys/electricity-transmission-network-requirements/scottish-boundaries

and due to latitude and seasons then any Scottish solar will provide very limited electricity during Winter so they'll running on just wind with a bit of 'flex' hydro**, some of which they can store to cover the 'intermittent' issue but a lot of which they will want to export to England, being so close and usually in a position of needing to import from somewhere - preferably Scotland IMO, but others might disagree of course***. As the link states then occasionally Scotland will need to import from England although the amount and frequency of that will depend on the storage component. Fair to say those interconnectors will almost always be flowing Scotland-England and again, assuming some increased storage capacity (on both sides of the border), could run that way pretty much 24/365.

* www.nationalgrideso.com/research-publications/etys/electricity-transmission-network-requirements/scottish-boundaries
** If they really want to be an even Greener version of Norway then they could increase their hydro beyond the projects previously mentioned on this thread with the additional benefit of improving the efficient use of current/future Scotland-England interconnectors
*** EG some ENATs at NG (and apparently one 'stakeholder' in the recent 'consultation') who don't like the idea of England becoming reliant on Scottish electricity exports. Not a major concern of mine given that with the pipeline of new electricity generation coming then the balance of power (pun intended) will move from 'sellers' to 'buyers' at some point in the next few years (depending on when France gets it act together on old-old and new-old nuclear and how quickly E&W replace more of our dead/dying fleet of old-old nuclear - the pipeline for wind farms having been mentioned before and finally proceeding with less 'dither and delay', for 'offshore' at least). The Indy risk and subsequent (low IMO) risk of the end of the 'one nation' grid approach does mean we'll likely keep a lot more CCGT (and possibly still coal) in reserve, 'just in case'. Not ideal and not 'free' but a tangent for discussion elsewhere that I can't be bothered getting into again. 

[Mr Poppy]

Jan 30, 2023 12:50:43 GMT leftieliberal said:

Jan 28, 2023 23:04:52 GMT lens said:

...National Grid ESO’s modelling shows a significant increase in network constraint costs through to the end of the decade[8], and this analysis was produced prior to the government’s new ambitions being announced, which are likely to increase costs further....

[8] www.nationalgrideso.com/document/194436/download

The graph in the link, shows a temporary blip although perhaps people differ on their views of 'significant'

Attachment Deleted

Also note that just as generating plans can increase then so can other components (eg transmission network and storage components). The links posted in my previous post is itself out of date but shows Scotland-England 'capability' increasing further into 2030 and beyond. What is somewhat uncertain at this point is what Scotland intends to do with the periods of excess supply that would be uneconomic to provide even more additional transmission cables for. Scotland is not my polity but is not economically justifiable to get network constraints costs to zero as that would require long periods of expensive transmission cables being unused. IMO (and those who actually do the planning) then keeping network constraint costs at around only £1bn/year would be quite an achievement.

As they say: "While elements of the increasing constraint costs will be part of the overall economic solution (e.g., paying constraints may be better than building a new 400kV transmission line)"

NB I do appreciate parts of the planning are not as in sync as they could and should be, even adjusting for the fact that the plans are subject to change and some parts of the future are 'known, unknowns' and 'unknown, unknowns'. Since we hope the plans to continue to improve to the upside then I hope to see the plans for increased spending on the GB transmission network start to get a bit ahead of the game instead of playing 'catch-up'. Also, IMO we should lower the prioritisation of GB-rEurope interconnectors as they provide a lower £ for £ investment return for UK, reduce Energy security (compared to 'Build it in Britain' approach) and create a slight disincentive to sort our own problems out. The 'Old Model Tory' neoliberal view thought it was better to import subsidised French nuclear than the new model 'Build it in Britain' approach but thankfully that approach has been dropped by CON (and was never held by LAB post Blair - see previous comments from Miliband and more recent comments from Reeves).

[Mr Poppy]

and fresh from my inbox for those who want the now published (and hence already a bit of out of date) long read or just read #2 in the key messages ("2. Timely and coordinated network reinforcements will significantly help reduce network constraints") then..

The Electricity Ten Year Statement (ETYS) is the ESO’s view of future transmission requirements and the capability of Great Britain’s National Electricity Transmission System (NETS) over the next 10 years.

www.nationalgrideso.com/research-publications/etys

hopefully part of the 'evolving' plan will be to reduce the amount of orange in their forecast although Scot.Gov also needs to think about it's own polity and plenty of options they can consider...

[alec]

"Also, IMO we should lower the prioritisation of GB-rEurope interconnectors as they ..... reduce Energy security..."

That's just bollocks I'm afraid.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 3, 2023 16:42:03 GMT alec said:

"Also, IMO we should lower the prioritisation of GB-rEurope interconnectors as they ..... reduce Energy security (compared to 'Build it in Britain' approach)"

That's just bollocks I'm afraid.

Mark Are you going to stop the trolling (ie keep your word and stick to your own rules or not)?

It is extremely obvious* that GB-GB ranks higher on Energy security than GB-rEurope yet the troll seems to think that is "bollocks"

NB I've inserted the part he/she/they decided to leave out in bold

Quite why he/she/they still feel the need to troll me I don't know but you did promise you would do something about it and have clearly not done so. 

* IIRC then Remainers used to get excited about the French/Brussels threat to switch of the power to UK if we interpreted the NIP in a way they didn't like? Or perhaps, given the way it turned out and France/EU ending up importing electricity and nat.gas (via our LNG infrastructure) then there is another memory issue?

More recent articles I'm sure but back from pre-Putin's invasion of Ukraine:
France threatens to use energy supply to ‘put pressure’ on UK to comply with Brexit deal

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-energy-supply-agreement-uk-france-b1932522.html

Anyway, fortunately the current HMG and the next one plan to "Build it in Britain" to create Green British jobs for British workers. Also, even if we had never left the EU then it would be obvious that it is better to prioritise Scotland-England interconnectors, relative to GB-rEurope - assuming people understand the issues of course (and given my UKPR1 experience clearly showed that some people don't). 

[alec]

@trevor and Mark - yes, apologies, I realised afterwards I'm not allowed to quote Trevor, so please accept my apologies for my transgression. I should have just said that the idea that more interconnectors reduce energy security is bollocks without referencing Trevor.

BTW Trevs - pointing out where someone is wrong or has made a mistake isn't trolling. If you make such statements on a public forum like this, expect to be corrected, but try not to take it personally. Basically what you are asking for is for the right to talk nonsense and have it go unchallenged, because to point out factual errors is - in your view - trolling.

I'll also add a second apology, for when I quoted from your post on Denmark. Same thing applies - I shouldn't have lifted a direct quote as per @mark's ruling, so please accept my apologies for that. The substance of my post stands, however.

[lens]

Feb 3, 2023 10:27:29 GMT alec said:

"(eg the Viking Link to Denmark, a country quite a long way by subsea cable but that usually gets very similar wind to East Coast of England)"

Meteorologically speaking this isn't very accurate. A simple whizz through on the sea level pressure charts here - www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/gfs gives a good indicative idea of the variation between these two regions, and you need to consider the wider grid position. 

Yes, exactly. The whole point about renewable energy is that when it's sunny in one part of the world it may be nighttime elsewhere. It may be calm somewhere - but very windy somewhere else. With sufficient interconnectors you could have a situation where enough energy was always being generated to always meet demand via global averaging - it's just a question of getting it from where generated to where needed.....!

I don't for a moment think we are anyway near reaching such a situation - and maybe never will be.  But the advantages of such long distance interconnections is that whilst *on average* wind in Denmark may be similar to the east coast of England, that is far from saying that at any moment in time they will be experiencing the same conditions - quite likely that one may have a surplus and the other a deficit. Global averaging may never be feasible - but such as Viking Link and other long distance links may be a good start towards geographical averaging.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 3, 2023 23:54:46 GMT lens said:

Feb 3, 2023 10:27:29 GMT alec said:

But the advantages of such long distance interconnections is that whilst *on average* wind in Denmark may be similar to the east coast of England, that is far from saying that at any moment in time they will be experiencing the same conditions 

*On average* having the same effective meaning as 'usually'? IE NW Europe 'usually' gets similar weather and that includes wind speed and direction (plus sun) 

Simple question, open to all. Which would YOU prioritise if you compare the choice of:

1/ More Scotland-England interconnectors (where there is slightly higher dispersion of wind patterns compared to E.England-Denmark; where we can be near 100% sure there will be significant supply-demand imbalances for most of the time)
2/ More England-rEurope* (where the weather is 'usually' quite similar (ie both sides would usually be in states of 'excess' supply/demand; where we'd pay a network constraint charge to use them (in case anyone has 'forgotten' that); where the Energy Security aspect is obviously less 'secure' given UK left the EU (something perhaps some people have forgotten?); where it creates a potential disincentive to make/buy/sell more electricity in Britain)

Not a tough question so need to go into the full capacity utilisation numbers of "usually" (which would be potentially up to 24/365 for #1 and potentially near 0 for #2 if instead we also prioritised more grid level storage), yet one that the 'vested interests' seem to get wrong given Viking Link was approved before either of the two new (and still insufficient**) Scotland-England interconnectors (that are not truly international due to the 'one nation' GB approach and hence would not be subject to network constraint costs as GB-rEurope ones are***) 

NB I'm not against some increase to closer neighbours such as France, but this discussion started with the question of "Yes, and" choices to reduce network constraint costs for GB national grid. Given choices are required between which undersea interconnectors are prioritised (and then how they impact the overall solution) then the question is the priorities (in case that was in anyway whatsoever unclear from my previous posts). 

* Not including Norway who have a lot of hydro and hence makes a lot more sense for GB to interconnect with. Iberia and Morocco are other possibilities with different renewable related generation profiles (wind and sun) but the distances are longer and there is only so much undersea cable laying capacity around and ££billions to invest in it - hence the need to prioritise and compare the choices of who we interconnect with and which ones have the highest priority (ie get built first).  
** Pretty sure we all agreed on that, just some slight differences on by how much and what other "yes, and" options could reduce the additional capacity required (although note from the links provided that further increases are expected - just not approved yet)
*** We can go over that again if people want to. IIRC it was highlighted that interconnectors are not a 'supplier' of electricity even though it is reported as if they are. Perhaps some people still don't understand that?

[Mr Poppy]

Repost of table 3, p31 (same place every month) showing:

Breakdown of constraint costs by fuel type, for the year to date


Attachment Deleted

From the Monthly Balancing Services Summary (MBSS), Nov'22 update: data.nationalgrideso.com/balancing/mbss

Interconnectors are obviously not a 'fuel type' but the vested interests* who build them do expect a Return on Investment and hence have a desire for them to be used as much as possible. The title is misleading and hence ripe for misunderstanding as the case when the info was last posted. 

* Ownership varies for each interconnector but folks can look that up for themselves and draw their own conclusions about why there was 'dither and delay' on reducing the congestion and network constraint costs between Scotland-England yet stuff like Viking Link was approved as a higher priority. Also, provided you don't fall for the glossy sales brochure, then what 'fuel type' are we actually importing when we pay to use the interconnectors for imports? For GB exports then it is 'usually' excess wind power (although that wasn't always the case last year when so much of the French nuclear fleet was offline and we burned gas to export electricity - links previously provided). I've mentioned the 'carbon accounting' issue for GB imports before. Sure, they'll "say" we're importing French nuclear or Danish wind but if France/Denmark are simultaneously importing electricity produced from fossil fuels from Germany/elsewhere (and Denmark likely would be for days of 'cold dunkelflaute' weather in NW.Europe) then that is 'green washing'** (IMO, but of course others can disagree or fall for the sales pitch rather than make the effort to understand the issues)

** and the 'Old Model Tory' neoliberal approach of 'exporting jobs only to reimport a higher global carbon footprint'. Sadly looking at Jan'23 data then after a great 2022 we went back to the 'old model' last month but NG will of course focus on stuff like we burned a lot less coal in GB (even if we indirectly then imported it from Germany via France instead)  . If anyone wants to take a 'pop' at NG (and Ofgem and indirectly CON HMG) then make an effort to understand what is REALLY happening when we prioritise England-rEurope interconnectors over 'Build it (and connect up) Britain' and COMPARE the benefits (in ££ and CO2 of the options)
www.nationalgrideso.com/electricity-explained/electricity-and-me/great-britains-monthly-electricity-stats

[alec]

lens - I think it's time to introduce some facts to the rather bizarre points Trevor has raised about interconnectors and claims regarding the Denmark/Scotland comparison.

The straight line distance from London to the Scottish border is c 480km, to central Scotland (around Perth) around 630km and to the far NW tip of mainland Scotland it's 856km. The straight line distance from London to the Danish west coast is c 700km, to central Denmark around 800km and to the Danish east coast it's around 920km. There is no way to cut this - Denmark is further from SE England than Scotland. Unless there is some cogent argument that can posit that weather systems vary differentially on a N/S axis compared to an E/W axis, then the idea that connecting with Denmark gives less variability than connecting with Scotland is nonsense. There isn't such a case, and yes, Trevor's argument really is total nonsense. If you are looking for variation, Denmark is the place to go.

It's actually a little more than just distance though, as these two links show - world-weather.info/archive/denmark/copenhagen/#t2 and world-weather.info/archive/united_kingdom/london/#t2

These show the archive average wind roses for London and Copenhagen, and you can see some striking differences. London has winds from the W or SW for around 42.5% of the year on average, whereas Copenhagen just 35%, but it gets S winds for 19.6% of the year compared to London's 15.7%. London only sees E or SE winds for 14% of the year. compared to Copenhagen's 21.2%. In meteorological terms, these are quite significant differences, and it's because Denmark is more prone to continental weather systems. Even when Denmark is under the influence of typical Atlantic westerly flows, because these come from the , er.., west, it means we get them first, so although it is fair to claim Denmark has westerly winds for a similar proportion of the time to England, these are usually offset by twelve hours or so, which is ideal for energy management. Scotland, by contrast, is on a similar longitude to England, they will tend to experience westerly systems in a much more closely correlated time scale.

None of this is rocket science, but I think unfortunately we do sometimes see the tendency on here for some posters to post something nonsensical (all of us do this from time to time), but when it gets picked up, for whatever reason some want to dig deeper, rather than just accept they got something wrong. That's clearly what's going on here.

There are issues with interconnectors, and Trevor makes a good point about complex carbon accounting, but it wasn't for nothing that John Donne wrote 'No man is an island' in 1624. He could have been a power grid engineer with thinking like that.

[Mr Poppy]

FFS. Not only does London and Copenhagen "usually" get "similar" weather but how many wind farms are in London? Maps provided before but also see image and the link below:



map.4coffshore.com/offshorewind/

Mark . When are you going to do something and keep your word? Rather than admit he has totally misrepresented the discussion by dropping the "comparing" point, Alec is now posting more links that a/ prove that the wind patterns between the two capital cities are "usually" "similar" but he also seems to be blissfully unaware of where current/future wind farms are/will be located (see above link and note I have previously posted links for wind farm locations, possibly some people have 'forgotten' that and been too lazy to look the info up themselves and instead think GB wind farms are in London?)

We've even had several 'real World' instance of 'cold dunkelflaute' weather in recent months and that was 'in the news' and discussed on this thread. The whole of NW Europe (which includes GB and Denmark) does sometimes get several days in a row of very little wind when all countries in NW Europe who intend to be 'mostly' wind power (eg GB and Denmark) will all have 'excess demand' and need electricity from somewhere or something that isn't wind or solar (and hence why a bit of British nuclear and British storage comes in handy, as does being able to tap into Norway's hydro and French nuclear*). At the other extreme (excess supply) then, given the build out that GB (notably Scotland, but also places like Dogger Bank off the East Coast of England**) is intending to do, then, provided we also prioritise Scotland-England interconnectors (the original discussion and the obvious priority preference in the 'comparison') then GB (notably Scotland) will certainly be looking to export electricity*** to someone but given the "usually, similar" weather across our near neighbours who are also prioritising wind farms in locations that "usually" get "similar" weather then they will also have excess supply at the same time.

Of course Alec will never admit he is wrong and will just keep on digging along what he thinks is a 'gotcha' tangent that he has now created, blissfully unaware of reality in the pursuit of his pathetic, petty, personal vendetta from UKPR. Hence why you have asked (or at least told me that you have) for Alec to stop replying to my posts (which he has tried to get around by 'quoting' sections of my posts without mentioning me by name but has now even dropped that pretence). Of course I have now also broken your rules and mentioned Alec's name, having been dragged back into his fabricated nonsense by your lack of action on dealing with the problem - so by all means ban me for breaking your rules as well!

* At least until we've built back up our own fleet and even then France (being so close; having a very different mix of electricity generation to UK; and being well connected to rEurope) will be a justifiable place for GB to be interconnected to (up to a point, before it creates disincentives for GB investment)

** Just in case anyone doesn't know where that is located then map below.
Attachment Deleted

More info on the size of that once the current approved stages are built out: doggerbank.com

*** and/or electricity storage, and/or 'value-add' products like green hydrogen (quite likely a bit of all three once we move to 'over-capacity' in the not too distant future) 

[alec]

Mark - this is a classic of it's kind. Trevor has talked a bit of nonsense about interconnectors with the continental grid creating instability when compared to interconnectors with Scotland. It's just complete bollocks, as anyone with knowledge of the sector, and almost everyone else, knows. When this gets pointed out, he goes off on one of his childish, snowflake whinges to mummy, claiming some kind of trolling vendetta etc etc.

I really don't give two hoots about Trevor, but if I see posters on here write stuff that isn't true then I think they should expect to be corrected. If they don't like this, then they shouldn't make misleading claims. Demanding that other posters shouldn't be allowed to pick up such mistakes is just self protecting censorship.

[lens]

Feb 4, 2023 9:09:50 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Feb 3, 2023 23:54:46 GMT lens said:

But the advantages of such long distance interconnections is that whilst *on average* wind in Denmark may be similar to the east coast of England, that is far from saying that at any moment in time they will be experiencing the same conditions 

*On average* having the same effective meaning as 'usually'? IE NW Europe 'usually' gets similar weather and that includes wind speed and direction (plus sun) 

No, not meaning that at all. Hypothetically, Denmark could be very windy - England very calm for the first and third weeks of the month, and for the second and fourth weeks the other way round, Denmark calm and England windy. So for February they would both have the same *AVERAGE* weather, but wildy different weather on any one day. And it's the latter that is relevant in the renewable/interconnector debate. It's the difference between weather and climate.

Yes, I'd strongly doubt it would ever be extreme as such, but no I wouldn't expect two places 720-900km (thanks alec) apart to have the same *weather* at any particular moment in time.

As far as interconnectors go, then for the avoidance of doubt I'm not suggesting the Viking Link is more important than any North-South UK link - they are both important. As are any others connecting areas widely geographically separated, such that at any given time they may be experiencing differing weather conditions.

[alec]

lens - happy to see someone else sees how this makes sense. I'm really struggling to conceive that anyone who has ever followed a weather forecast could actually try to claim that somewhere further away is likely to have more similar weather than somewhere closer. Just a bit barking, but like I say, a hang up from Brexit I think. A desire to deny we should work with and benefit from our European allies in any way shape or form. Strange.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 4, 2023 22:34:36 GMT lens said:

Feb 4, 2023 9:09:50 GMT Mr Poppy said:

*On average* having the same effective meaning as 'usually'? IE NW Europe 'usually' gets similar weather and that includes wind speed and direction (plus sun) 

Yes, I'd strongly doubt it would ever be extreme as such, but no I wouldn't expect two places 720-900km (thanks alec ) apart to have the same *weather* at any particular moment in time.

FFSv2. Did I say "same" or do you think "usually, similar" = "same" ??

However, I've highlighted 720-900km apart as you seem to struggle with the same issue as Alec WRT to where current/future wind farm locations are/will be - despite the maps being provided for both of you (and more than once!). Viking Link will be approximately 765 km long* but the major wind farms located between England and Denmark are a lot closer than that (and yes I am aware that Denmark currently has quite a lot of onshore wind farms and wind farms close to Copenhagen - ones that don't fully meet there current needs and hence why they are looking to build in the Southern part of the North Sea) 

Do you need me to put a scale on the map of where the current/future wind farms are to show how close places like Dogger Bank are to the future wind farm locations that Denmark is likely to build, or do you also think we have a load of wind farms in London (which "usually" has "similar" weather to Copenhagen anyway - and note where most of the current+future wind farms in Denmark are/will be built and that they aren't in Copenhagen but actually mostly very close to where we have/will have wind farms)

However, what the map does also show is that the future wind farms being built in the North part of the North Sea (notably around Sheltand) are actually a comparatively long way from London/SE England (places that I expect most people would know are on the demand side of electricity since the discussion started about GB network constraints, rather than being the location of current/future wind farms) so quite clearly the priority when "comparing" the two is to ensure Scottish-English interconnectors are built out (as per the original discussion). If you/Alec did understand the "weather" dispersion around GB coast and the sea we share with our near neighbours and how much over capacity we will have in the near future when it is windy then you might grasp that, in the near future, we will never need to import excess wind electricity from Denmark when it is windy around the coast of GB. For exports, then unless Denmark decide not to build wind farms very close to Dogger Bank then they'd never need to import excess wind electricity from GB - gob smackingly obvious, although not the two of you apparently.

However, keep digging the 'fake gotcha' tangent and embarrassing yourselves boys - until Mark eventually intervenes



* Glossy online brochure with the sales pitch for the gullible types: viking-link.com

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 4, 2023 22:27:17 GMT alec said:

Mark - this is a classic of it's kind. Trevor has talked a bit of nonsense about interconnectors with the continental grid creating instability when compared to interconnectors with Scotland. It's just complete bollocks, as anyone with knowledge of the sector, and almost everyone else, knows. When this gets pointed out, he goes off on one of his childish, snowflake whinges to mummy, claiming some kind of trolling vendetta etc etc.

I really don't give two hoots about Trevor, but if I see posters on here write stuff that isn't true then I think they should expect to be corrected. If they don't like this, then they shouldn't make misleading claims. Demanding that other posters shouldn't be allowed to pick up such mistakes is just self protecting censorship.

FFSv3. Just admit you're the one who is wrong and talking bollocks Alec and you can stop embarrassing yourself any further. What is wrong with you?

[alec]

Trevor - I think you just need to accept that the first principle of geographically diverse networks, like weather systems and energy supply and demand systems, is that wider geographic scale promotes greater options for stability. That's just such an obvious first principle and it's plain silly to try to pretend otherwise. Just go look at the forecast wind speeds for the next seven days for Grimsby and Copenhagen and you'll start to appreciate where you went wrong.

We all sometimes take a point too far and end up saying something illogical or wrong. When people point such things out, it's no vendetta - just people more knowledgeable than we are sharing their expertise. You're hung up on a Brexit inspired 'make it here' idea, and you've wrongly applied this to the energy sector, with predictable results.

[Mr Poppy]

The EEZ map of the North Sea is obviously useful to look at when looking at the locations of the current/future wind farm map of the North Sea (ie which countries have claims to which parts)

Attachment Deleted

It's not just Denmark that are are planning massive new wind farms in their bits of the North Sea but it should be very clear to most people where the biggest ones are being planned (the North part of the North Sea that is in UK's EEZ) and how much further they are away from the areas in the Southern part of the North Sea where UK, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, and to a smaller extent Belgium, are all planning to build a lot more wind farms all quite close together.

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 5, 2023 7:45:33 GMT alec said:

We all sometimes take a point too far and end up saying something illogical or wrong.

You mean yourself who not only fabricated yet another 'fake gotcha' by dropping the 'comparison' point that was being made WRT to discussion of GB network constraint costs but has kept digging deep into the North Sea wind farm locations with a demonstration of blissful unawareness that it is in fact the location of the wind farms (ie generation side) that matters and not the locations of the major population areas, such as capital cities (ie major parts of the demand side where we're not going to build wind farms or nuclear, etc).

You can put the spade down anytime (eg before Mark has to intervene) - admit you started off with a misrepresentation and then have just kept on digging deeper by showing blissful ignorance of the issues around wind farms and interconnectors.

So here's my offer, very similar to the last offer you declined to take (and that Mark failed to enforce even though I honoured my side of the agreement):

1/ Delete all the recent nonsense you've posted where you've yet again broken Mark 's rules (the site rules, not my 'childish, resorting to mummy' rules) and we can leave it at that

2/ From now on you do stick to the site rules and the additional rules that Mark has requested we both stick to - rules that I was sticking to before you once again had to start breaking them for whatever reason you claim (and it is very clearly not because I was wrong but by all means keep digging into the North Sea wind farm issue if you want to). 

[alec]

And here's a link to a map showing the currently operational wind farms in the Baltic Sea and Danish Straights sea areas, which currently total 2.8MW

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relief_Map_of_Baltic_Sea.png

And this link shows us that, inspired by good old Vlad Putin, the Baltic states have just announced plans for a massive 20GW expansion of Baltic wind power by 2030, so a massive short term expansion over a very short time scale - www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-baltic-sea-countries-agree-offshore-wind-power-capacity-boost/

Given that the Baltic is in a different weather zone than the east coast of the UK, Scotland, the Irish Sea etc, and it's also in a different time zone (actually, two different time zones, with the eastern Baltic 2 hours difference top the UK upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Time_Zones_of_Europe.svg/300px-Time_Zones_of_Europe.svg.png) isn't it just so wonderful that we're going to have a direct interconnector to that huge power generation asset?

[alec]

@trevor - I've already apologised to both you and Mark for lifting quotes from your posts. That was against Mark's rulings, so yes, I'm sorry about that. No, I won't delete them because I made a mistake, I apologised and I believe people should be able to see what happened and not have people's errors edited out.

As to the substance, no, you got something wrong and I corrected it - nothing more or less than that. No 'gotcha's'. That's your ego talking I'm afraid. Of course I won't delete factually correct posts. Why on earth would anyone do that?

And a final note on the London/Copenhagen comparison; most intelligent people might have appreciated that this was for illustrative purposes only, to describe the realities of geography. I chose London as the centre of demand, not generation (like, doh!) but the geographic and meteorological point holds very firm indeed when you look at the geographical distribution of UK wind power assets. We need more interconnectors, within the UK and with other countries. National Grid ESO has been atrocious at developing our own UK network, but that doesn't alter the fundamental point - geographically diverse systems get more stable when there are more long distances linkages.

Lets just leave it at that shall we? I have nothing further to add, and I think everyone else understands what I'm saying.

[johntel]

In case anyone's interested the 'Peak Save' experiment has failed in our household - during the last three sessions the mobile signal hasn't been strong enough for Britsh Gas to take readings. They've given me some minimal compensation but say they are now taking me off the register.

By the way the mobile coverage round here is awful despite the fact that I live less than a mile from the M25 in a big urban area and it's not particularly hilly. Pathetic really in this day and age - the government should do something about it!

[Mr Poppy]

Feb 5, 2023 8:59:36 GMT alec said:

And a final note on the London/Copenhagen comparison; most intelligent people might have appreciated that this was for illustrative purposes only

Have they? Who are you speaking for. I would have thought most* intelligent people would have known that it is the wind farm locations that matters and thought you were an idiot by using the location of the two capitals (who also have quite similar weather anyway - as your links showed). I take it that you finally realised you made an idiot of yourself in the North Sea 'fake gotcha' tangent but are now desperately trying to claim, only now, that you meant "illustrative purposes"  

Anyone wish to reopen discussions on 'Demand Shifting' (the new hole your trying to dig a bit East of the North Sea) or look into how much additional green energy (adjusted for load factors) that countries around the Baltic Sea will need to wean themselves off Russian energy and get to 'Net Zero'. We can go down both those tangents if you want to. 

It was never clear that you understood the difference between demand 'shifting' and demand 'reduction' back on UKPR but by all means reopen that discussion and for your tangent into the Baltic then I hope you will adjust any new wind farm GW numbers for 'load factors' when you show those against the amount of green electricity countries around the Baltic Sea are going to need to get to 'Net Zero' (which reminds we we could also talk about 'gravity' component of trade in goods, noting that electricity is a 'perishable' good - unless you build a lot more storage for it).

So many tangents you can choose to reopen if you want to - or maybe just stop replying to me and wait for Mark to deal with whatever you're trying to claim you think you are doing (beyond breaking his rules) by having felt the need to think you are 'correcting' me (so absurdly inaccurate when you've been the one caught talking bollocks, yet again)

* You did pick up one 'fan' and I expect some of the other gotcha gang will 'like' your posts (ignoring their own hypocrisy about fabricating quotes)

[alec]

Oh dear. Lots of chaff appearing, just like the old days. Tiresome.

I'll away and back to the grown ups.

[Mr Poppy]

Quick look at just this page unhiding more posts before the bizarre 'fake gotcha' of

Feb 3, 2023 16:42:03 GMT alec said:

"Also, IMO we should lower the prioritisation of GB-rEurope interconnectors as they ..... reduce Energy security..."

That's just bollocks I'm afraid.

Where (compared to 'Build it in Britain' approach) was omitted and hence the bizarre tangent that Alec then continued to dig in the North Sea (and has wisely realised not to pursue into the Baltic Sea given the energy demands of countries like Poland and Germany and how far they are away from getting to 'Net Zero'). 

Posts that also broke Mark 's rules WRT to Alec engaging with me/my posts that I've now read and where some petty selective quoting then failure to actually make a substantive and/or accurate point:

Feb 3, 2023 10:27:29 GMT alec said:

Feb 2, 2023 11:48:26 GMT alec said:

Which for his benefit I'll simply timestamp record above so he can edit or delete them if he wants to. 

Thank to you a lurker for pointing out the third 'bollocks' one that I did respond to, breaking Mark 's rules myself by doing so. It's been a bit back and forth since I did start breaking the rules myself but very clearly who, yet again, started it. 

I could go back further and pretty sure there is some comedy gold in some other Alec replies I haven't yet read.. although the offer still stands for Alec to delete his fabricated nonsense and displays of ignorance before I engage in 'correcting' his posts or dredging up old issues from UKPR where Alec seemed to think he was 'correcting' me. Or Mark decides to ban me given I'm now also clearly violating the rules by engaging with Alec, but he is not enforcing them on Alec so perhaps he wants UKPR2 to return to the cesspit of UKPR rather than constructive discussion? 

However, since it is obviously a trap then I hope Alec doesn't have the intelligence to correct (and we'd see the timestamp for 'edit') or delete some of his posts. 

Busy for a few hours but I'll check back later. You never know, one day he might realise he should stop engaging with me - we live in hope!  

[Trevor unhiding posts]

Nov 10, 2022 17:47:13 GMT alec said:

Mr Poppy - "Q: What are the two elements in a hydrocarbon?

You might want to delete your post before too many people see it and have a ROFL or point out the 'greenwashing' of the 'vested interests' pushing SAF - or not, your choice."

Sorry, but I don't understand your point. I suspect you might not either.

You are promoting e-fuels, which are, by definition, made from electricity, with associated conversion losses and therefore expense, whereas I am explaining that we are already creating carbon neutral, sustainable fuels direct from biomass, via a much more energetically efficient process.

Why would this be funny?

The above 'Trevor' wasn't me, even though Alec quoted it as me (breaking Mark's rules) but the person who did pose the unanswered question and I did have a ROFL about Alec not understanding how synthetic HYDRO-(as in Hydrogen)-Carbons are made and which of the two elements we would need to create more of for those who are promoting e-fuels.

NB I'm certainly not promoting e-fuels but I do appreciate they can be part of a 'bridging' solution until we can hopefully use hydrogen directly for air travel.  

Anyway, this wasn't the gem I was told to look for and I know not to bring up hydrogen on this forum.