The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
rolando said:
The future should certainly not be based on us all paying wind farms to stand idle.
"A record £4.8m was paid to wind farm operators in the space of one day, for switching off turbines when it became too windy.
More than 60 farms — most in Scotland — were compensated after electricity supply outstripped demand on October 8. The bonanza far exceeded the previous reported record of £3.1m, sparking fresh criticism of the Scottish government’s headlong rush towards green energy.
In exceptionally windy conditions, the National Grid cannot cope with the extra energy turbines produce, so firms receive “constraint payments” to shut down. Although most wind power comes from Scotland, households across Britain are funding the payments through their electricity bills."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/28/record-payo...
and this is the problem. We have a system that has been manipulated to allow wind generation (and others) a foothold (rightly or wrongly, not going to argue that point here) without developing a system to cope with it. The existing nuclear stations were given a privileged position to allow us to remain on the network whenever we are operating (as we are largely inflexible by design) and until recently, coal and gas operated flexibly to cope."A record £4.8m was paid to wind farm operators in the space of one day, for switching off turbines when it became too windy.
More than 60 farms — most in Scotland — were compensated after electricity supply outstripped demand on October 8. The bonanza far exceeded the previous reported record of £3.1m, sparking fresh criticism of the Scottish government’s headlong rush towards green energy.
In exceptionally windy conditions, the National Grid cannot cope with the extra energy turbines produce, so firms receive “constraint payments” to shut down. Although most wind power comes from Scotland, households across Britain are funding the payments through their electricity bills."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/28/record-payo...
Constraint payments should cease as its allowing builders to enter the market without having to think about the effect they have. Whole things a mess, prices are all over the place for some, fixed and generous for others. Not the way to operate the single most vital resource in the country.
Gary C said:
Constraint payments should cease as its allowing builders to enter the market without having to think about the effect they have. Whole things a mess, prices are all over the place for some, fixed and generous for others. Not the way to operate the single most vital resource in the country.
Not sure I agree with that. There were system constraints before wind turbines were introduced and when NG need to work on lines and transformers you inevitably get areas of excess and deficit generation. The problem until recently was that the Western Link, a new 2.2gw high voltage line from Scotland to England, was under going repairs. That work has now finished and the line is operational, and there has been a noticeably large drop in balancing costs over the last couple of weeks.
You cant just get rid of constraint costs, and have a market which functions economically. For the market to work you need to have 1 price, and 1 delivery point, regardless of where the generation and demand are on the system. It is down to NG Transmission to build a network which is robust and applicable for the future. There are lots of projects going on to make the system more robust, both in terms of physical infrastructure at transmission level, and projects at distribution and demand level, but yes, the network simply doesnt move as fast as the technology and installation of new generation.
EDIT - as an aside, while the turbines would have not been generating, they wouldn't have been getting any subsidies either. The prices paid to stop generating simply replace the ROCs, so while the cost is added to the energy bill, the tax payer saves approximately an equivalent amount.
Edited by Condi on Monday 29th October 16:50
Condi said:
EDIT - as an aside, while the turbines would have not been generating, they wouldn't have been getting any subsidies either. The prices paid to stop generating simply replace the ROCs, so while the cost is added to the energy bill, the tax payer saves approximately an equivalent amount.
So the non-taxpayer pays?Edited by Condi on Monday 29th October 16:50
If not, who does?
And if, say, somewhere decides to encourage and assist finding for the building of a whole lot of capacity that it cannot be certain to consume in the full knowledge that at the time there is no facility to ship any over supply anywhere else - should that attract money for nothing?
Once in a while due to unplanned situations it a reasonable fall back position to enable and encourage investment. However, if it is a deliberate decision taken for some political purpose on a large scale then it deserves to be rigorously investigated with the decision makers being held to account.
Condi said:
Gary C said:
Constraint payments should cease as its allowing builders to enter the market without having to think about the effect they have. Whole things a mess, prices are all over the place for some, fixed and generous for others. Not the way to operate the single most vital resource in the country.
Not sure I agree with that. There were system constraints before wind turbines were introduced and when NG need to work on lines and transformers you inevitably get areas of excess and deficit generation. The problem until recently was that the Western Link, a new 2.2gw high voltage line from Scotland to England, was under going repairs. That work has now finished and the line is operational, and there has been a noticeably large drop in balancing costs over the last couple of weeks.
You cant just get rid of constraint costs, and have a market which functions economically. For the market to work you need to have 1 price, and 1 delivery point, regardless of where the generation and demand are on the system. It is down to NG Transmission to build a network which is robust and applicable for the future. There are lots of projects going on to make the system more robust, both in terms of physical infrastructure at transmission level, and projects at distribution and demand level, but yes, the network simply doesnt move as fast as the technology and installation of new generation.
Edited by Condi on Monday 29th October 16:50
NGC seem to be the one investing in.keeping it all working. A new 400kv sub is under construction next to ours for example, but we could do with a singular direction in the countries planning and I don't see that.
LongQ said:
So the non-taxpayer pays?
If not, who does?
And if, say, somewhere decides to encourage and assist finding for the building of a whole lot of capacity that it cannot be certain to consume in the full knowledge that at the time there is no facility to ship any over supply anywhere else - should that attract money for nothing?
Once in a while due to unplanned situations it a reasonable fall back position to enable and encourage investment. However, if it is a deliberate decision taken for some political purpose on a large scale then it deserves to be rigorously investigated with the decision makers being held to account.
I think that ROCs are paid from the government purse, while balancing costs are added into the cost of generation. In which case the consumer pays. If not, who does?
And if, say, somewhere decides to encourage and assist finding for the building of a whole lot of capacity that it cannot be certain to consume in the full knowledge that at the time there is no facility to ship any over supply anywhere else - should that attract money for nothing?
Once in a while due to unplanned situations it a reasonable fall back position to enable and encourage investment. However, if it is a deliberate decision taken for some political purpose on a large scale then it deserves to be rigorously investigated with the decision makers being held to account.
The way the system works, from planning projects right through to within day trading, is that the system is treated as 'one', ie without any constraints. The fact Scotland has lots of wind turbines is because it is the most efficient place to build them, rather than any other reason. National Grid's job is to ensure the network can transmit the power, and investments like the Western Link are there to do so. The energy companies have to act economically regardless of system constraints, which we only guess at anyway, because NG dont publish line outages and constraints.
When you witness a Greenpeace activist frothing at the mouth and gills over all things fission (not all aspects are bomb the bstrd), you will understand why politicians dare not tread there.
In addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
In addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
With This Staff said:
When you witness a Greenpeace activist frothing at the mouth and gills over all things fission (not all aspects are bomb the bstrd), you will understand why politicians dare not tread there.
In addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
this will probably be the winter we find out how weak or robust what we have in place is. the councils running out of grit is a pain in the arse, running out of gas would bring a whole new world of pain. fingers crossed the wind comes with the snow and ice.In addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
Condi said:
LongQ said:
So the non-taxpayer pays?
If not, who does?
And if, say, somewhere decides to encourage and assist finding for the building of a whole lot of capacity that it cannot be certain to consume in the full knowledge that at the time there is no facility to ship any over supply anywhere else - should that attract money for nothing?
Once in a while due to unplanned situations it a reasonable fall back position to enable and encourage investment. However, if it is a deliberate decision taken for some political purpose on a large scale then it deserves to be rigorously investigated with the decision makers being held to account.
I think that ROCs are paid from the government purse, while balancing costs are added into the cost of generation. In which case the consumer pays. If not, who does?
And if, say, somewhere decides to encourage and assist finding for the building of a whole lot of capacity that it cannot be certain to consume in the full knowledge that at the time there is no facility to ship any over supply anywhere else - should that attract money for nothing?
Once in a while due to unplanned situations it a reasonable fall back position to enable and encourage investment. However, if it is a deliberate decision taken for some political purpose on a large scale then it deserves to be rigorously investigated with the decision makers being held to account.
The way the system works, from planning projects right through to within day trading, is that the system is treated as 'one', ie without any constraints. The fact Scotland has lots of wind turbines is because it is the most efficient place to build them, rather than any other reason. National Grid's job is to ensure the network can transmit the power, and investments like the Western Link are there to do so. The energy companies have to act economically regardless of system constraints, which we only guess at anyway, because NG dont publish line outages and constraints.
In the case of Scotland the only reason for building more capacity than can be shipped to consumers (when the wind is blowing) seems to be political vanity, ideology and a determination on behalf of some political people to self publicise even if the only person who might feel any benefit is the self publiciser.
Personally I don't think it a sensible policy to industrialise the Scottish landscape and risk the potential income from visitors seeking somewhere to visit once in a while that allows them to escape the industrialisation in their own locales. I doubt the political pigmies in the cities understand that wider and longer term view. - especially when the entire political construct is not financially self supporting anyway.
LongQ said:
In the case of Scotland the only reason for building more capacity than can be shipped to consumers (when the wind is blowing) seems to be political vanity, ideology and a determination on behalf of some political people to self publicise even if the only person who might feel any benefit is the self publiciser.
Scotland is the place with the most wind energy. Makes more sense to build them up there, where land is cheaper and load factors are much higher than in middle England where the wind barely blows. And now that new wires are working that power can be shipped down south more efficiently.
You think this is bad, wait until some of the big offshore wind farms get going. Hornsea is 6 gig.
LongQ said:
All consumers. rich or poor, tax payer or non-taxpayer pay.
In the case of Scotland the only reason for building more capacity than can be shipped to consumers (when the wind is blowing) seems to be political vanity, ideology and a determination on behalf of some political people to self publicise even if the only person who might feel any benefit is the self publiciser.
Personally I don't think it a sensible policy to industrialise the Scottish landscape and risk the potential income from visitors seeking somewhere to visit once in a while that allows them to escape the industrialisation in their own locales. I doubt the political pigmies in the cities understand that wider and longer term view. - especially when the entire political construct is not financially self supporting anyway.
unfortunately the bit in bold is scottish politics in a nutshell and has been for some time.In the case of Scotland the only reason for building more capacity than can be shipped to consumers (when the wind is blowing) seems to be political vanity, ideology and a determination on behalf of some political people to self publicise even if the only person who might feel any benefit is the self publiciser.
Personally I don't think it a sensible policy to industrialise the Scottish landscape and risk the potential income from visitors seeking somewhere to visit once in a while that allows them to escape the industrialisation in their own locales. I doubt the political pigmies in the cities understand that wider and longer term view. - especially when the entire political construct is not financially self supporting anyway.
With This Staff said:
When you witness a Greenpeace activist frothing at the mouth and gills over all things fission (not all aspects are bomb the bstrd), you will understand why politicians dare not tread there.
In addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
There's a new nuclear power station being built and fracking is going on; with the latter the economics of EPR are questionable but ultimately that's a problem for the french and chinese, there are other candidates for new stations with better economics that are simply waiting to clear the administrative bottleneck of Generic Design Approval at the ONR. Fracking in the UK will live or die according to its economics, not because Swampy and co are picketing the gates. How is any of this a clusterfIn addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
k?hidetheelephants said:
With This Staff said:
When you witness a Greenpeace activist frothing at the mouth and gills over all things fission (not all aspects are bomb the bstrd), you will understand why politicians dare not tread there.
In addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
There's a new nuclear power station being built and fracking is going on; with the latter the economics of EPR are questionable but ultimately that's a problem for the french and chinese, there are other candidates for new stations with better economics that are simply waiting to clear the administrative bottleneck of Generic Design Approval at the ONR. Fracking in the UK will live or die according to its economics, not because Swampy and co are picketing the gates. How is any of this a clusterfIn addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
k?Wind - will it won't it (probably not without something yet to be invented)
Coal - already consigned to scrap
Gas - yes until the nutters decide 'policy' is 100% renewable.
A 'clusterf
k'With This Staff said:
hidetheelephants said:
With This Staff said:
When you witness a Greenpeace activist frothing at the mouth and gills over all things fission (not all aspects are bomb the bstrd), you will understand why politicians dare not tread there.
In addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
There's a new nuclear power station being built and fracking is going on; with the latter the economics of EPR are questionable but ultimately that's a problem for the french and chinese, there are other candidates for new stations with better economics that are simply waiting to clear the administrative bottleneck of Generic Design Approval at the ONR. Fracking in the UK will live or die according to its economics, not because Swampy and co are picketing the gates. How is any of this a clusterfIn addition, you only have to look at what a total clsstrfk fracking is turning out to be.
Unfortunately, the political path of least resistance may be the worst of all.
k?Wind - will it won't it (probably not without something yet to be invented)
Coal - already consigned to scrap
Gas - yes until the nutters decide 'policy' is 100% renewable.
A 'clusterf
k'Realistically, given the regulatory regime, the costs are too high to over build. So the maximum capacity that would make economic sense for nuclear would be the summer evening base load level (or slightly below that) assuming that the UK does not become hot enough on a regular basis to adopt mandatory aircon as soon as the heating is turned off in the spring).
Even at that level the economics for the other providers with the ability to deliver on demand would probably be challenging at best. Unless, of course, the cost of electricity rises to cover the discrepancies - which is what the various payments for curtailed production are about. Also, of course, the guaranteed prices for production - but that is perhaps less obvious.
Fracking will run into the "it's still a fossil fuel' wall at some point . Probably immediately after the last coal station closes.
More to the point it would be quite surprising if fracking could be made both acceptable and profitable in the UK on the basis of what has been seen so far.
As I understand things it is not profitable in the USA and if one can't make it work there at a supportable price things would have to get very expensive here before investment would pay off.
That might happen but if it does it might suggest that the medium term economic outlook is very poor. Expensive energy is never a good thing unless it only applies to competitors, thus giving one a potential advantage of some sort. Even then one's cheap' has to be consumer level cheap to the point if affordability in real terms not just relative to competitors.
With This Staff said:
Get them built - the demand will only ever increase.
Simply not true, overall and peak demand has been falling for years. Quite how much power electric vehicles will take is still to be decided, but we have more than enough capacity to charge EVs overnight without affecting peak demand. Personally, i think the future for vehicles is hydrogen. Probably produced from solar or wind power. EVs are a stopgap.
My company manufactures actuators that open and close valves. So we do a lot of work for oil and gas.
Last week one European customer was telling us (this is public info) that by 2030 the Dutch will stop production on their biggest gas field.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-gro...
The answer will be to import Nordic gas by sea, but it has a different composition so the infrastructure has to be upgraded.
Then the next big thing will be phase out of hydrocarbon based gas by 2050!
There will be moves to upgrade the gas network to hydrogen including conversion of gas power stations, building wind powered hydrogen generation and upgrading the pipeline again to distribute hydrogen.
I am just on my phone but here's one link I found with a quick Google...
https://www.powermag.com/mhps-will-convert-dutch-c...
Given that this thread has educated me on uk's Reliance on gas, I wonder if we will follow the same path.
Will this enable the infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell cars automatically?
Last week one European customer was telling us (this is public info) that by 2030 the Dutch will stop production on their biggest gas field.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-gro...
The answer will be to import Nordic gas by sea, but it has a different composition so the infrastructure has to be upgraded.
Then the next big thing will be phase out of hydrocarbon based gas by 2050!
There will be moves to upgrade the gas network to hydrogen including conversion of gas power stations, building wind powered hydrogen generation and upgrading the pipeline again to distribute hydrogen.
I am just on my phone but here's one link I found with a quick Google...
https://www.powermag.com/mhps-will-convert-dutch-c...
Given that this thread has educated me on uk's Reliance on gas, I wonder if we will follow the same path.
Will this enable the infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell cars automatically?
Condi said:
With This Staff said:
Get them built - the demand will only ever increase.
Simply not true, overall and peak demand has been falling for years. Quite how much power electric vehicles will take is still to be decided, but we have more than enough capacity to charge EVs overnight without affecting peak demand. Personally, i think the future for vehicles is hydrogen. Probably produced from solar or wind power. EVs are a stopgap.
So what comes next, to reduce demand at peak as well as base load, as transportation and, if gas is to be eliminated as the next step after coal, space heating are electrified?
How do you see demand declining or increasing over the next 30 years?
Will it be possible to fund the significant re-engineering of the entire infrastructure whilst continuing to keep the unit cost of 'energy' competitive with the economies around the world that are not so committed to fossil derived energy elimination? Bear in mind that the CO2 generating efforts to make the infrastructure changes may need to be undertaken at least twice if there is a two step shift and significant parts of current conurbations would probably be better replaced rather than 'upgraded'.
Lastly, but not least, what will be the net benefit in real terms?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff