The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Wayoftheflower]

XM5ER said:

You've highlighted the issue that we on these threads have been talking about for many years. STOR is hugely costly and only necessary because of the dash for wind and solar, so a market distortion caused by a market distortion. Another "hidden" cost caused by "cheap" wind.

But surely the "hidden" cost has always been there when you're turning off a third of generation every single night and peak annual maximum demand is more than double the minimum. That's what I was getting at in an earlier post, that nearly half of all generation capacity is only needed for lack of storage.

All figures from 2016 Gridwatch which appears legit but I've not done more than a cursory check against other public numbers.

[LongQ]

XM5ER said:

Wayoftheflower said:

FT article from January.
"Small gas and diesel-fired plants — each generating up to 20MW of electricity — have become an important part of the UK energy mix as old coal and nuclear plants shut down. Their growth has been aided by lucrative payments for generating at times of peak demand without the hefty transmission charges faced by large power stations." Article

Why excessively subsidise small producers? Which is really better for the end-user? As of several pages ago the data from Gridwatch says to me the UK already has a huge (>6GW) over capacity in peak transient generation, ten percent is idled full time and a third is turned off every night.

You've highlighted the issue that we on these threads have been talking about for many years. STOR is hugely costly and only necessary because of the dash for wind and solar, so a market distortion caused by a market distortion. Another "hidden" cost caused by "cheap" wind.

The latest Elexon numbers for predicted capacity 52 weeks ahead seem to have some sort of assumption applied about turnout capacity for Wind whereas the previous system, as far as I understood, took the plated capacity of what was being metered at the time.

It seems that not all large wind installations are being metered and no solar plants are being metered so there is a fairly significant grey area of intermittent supply in the mix but not visible.

The nature of UK demand in the absence of extensive Aircon use in summer months, lends itself to large plant maintenance in the summer. In winter the target excess capacity installed was around 15% but more recently seems to have settled under 10%. That relates to about 6GW - the amount that the wind turbines are nominally thought to be capable of providing on average at that time of year.

If there is no wind or the demand is unexpectedly high or some other unplanned outage occurs .... things could get nasty. Some local areas might be worse affected than others in such a scenario.

STOR arrangements, extended when things look really tight a few years ago, seek to work around that locally and nationally. The output is instantly despatchable (in theory) and the cost to set up and connect the greenfield sites is relatively low. Basically a solution in some boxes.

It makes sense where you are deploying local emergency equipment that is already in place. Less sense if it brought in semi-permanently with no other purpose simply because of policy that adversely affects existing plant and future investment decisions about replacements.

[XM5ER]

Wayoftheflower said:

XM5ER said:

You've highlighted the issue that we on these threads have been talking about for many years. STOR is hugely costly and only necessary because of the dash for wind and solar, so a market distortion caused by a market distortion. Another "hidden" cost caused by "cheap" wind.

But surely the "hidden" cost has always been there when you're turning off a third of generation every single night and peak annual maximum demand is more than double the minimum. That's what I was getting at in an earlier post, that nearly half of all generation capacity is only needed for lack of storage.

All figures from 2016 Gridwatch which appears legit but I've not done more than a cursory check against other public numbers.

I see what you are getting at, that's why you have Economy 7 tariffs at the consumer level. However, this is scheduled in demand side consumption drop, very different to generation side intermittent issues. The latter is far more difficult and expensive to deal with.

[s2art]

Wayoftheflower said:

But surely the "hidden" cost has always been there when you're turning off a third of generation every single night and peak annual maximum demand is more than double the minimum. That's what I was getting at in an earlier post, that nearly half of all generation capacity is only needed for lack of storage.

All figures from 2016 Gridwatch which appears legit but I've not done more than a cursory check against other public numbers.

Its not that difficult to 'turn the wick down' when a highly predicable downturn in demand (overnight) or turn it up for peak, (as long as there is some surplus, 15% from hard won experience). Its unpredictable output and demand that causes inefficiencies and difficulties. There seems no prospect of providing sufficient storage, Barring vast expense.

[LongQ]

Wayoftheflower said:

XM5ER said:

You've highlighted the issue that we on these threads have been talking about for many years. STOR is hugely costly and only necessary because of the dash for wind and solar, so a market distortion caused by a market distortion. Another "hidden" cost caused by "cheap" wind.

But surely the "hidden" cost has always been there when you're turning off a third of generation every single night and peak annual maximum demand is more than double the minimum. That's what I was getting at in an earlier post, that nearly half of all generation capacity is only needed for lack of storage.

All figures from 2016 Gridwatch which appears legit but I've not done more than a cursory check against other public numbers.

Gridwatch takes the data from Elexon - which is fundamentally the UK electricity trading system.

Plus some estimated of solar from a department at Sheffield University. (Solar is not metered at this time. Probably not worth the effort.)




We already have stored an portable on-demand energy options - mainly oil and gas based now that the coal mines in the UK have been flooded.

Wood is another possibility but the numbers really only work if it is used very locally. And allowed to dry for some time before use.

The alternatives include demand management. So maybe slow cooking become the norm - or cold food.

Perhaps apps that wake us up when there is enough wind generation to allow some people to make use of, say, their internet connection for 15 minutes in the middle of the night once services had been restored. Premium account required of course.

[LongQ]

Europe seems more than able to generate excess electricity when the wind is blowing and demand is low and a generous deficit when it isn't.

This article describes how electricity flows around Europe to try to balance the grids and match unsatisfied demand to excess supply.

In some parts fo the system there are profits to be made, in others, losses.

Irrespective of Brexit the UK + Eire (at some point with its own direct connection to Europe via a connector to France) will almost certainly need to be part of the system given the likely construction activity in the North Sea.

Take a look at the author's bio and have a read.

http://euanmearns.com/getting-rid-of-wind-energy-i...

[LongQ]

LongQ said:

To follow this up a little, here's the link for the report once more.

http://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/N...

The Executive Summary, which I assume is about as much as the politicians will read, can be found on pages 7 to 10 of the PDF.

Basically it says that the the problem was the result of at least 3 storm strikes on some power lines that disrupted operation of the grid in a way that the automated systems could not work around successfully with the configuration deployed. Humans would not have been about to do much about it either.

Although it appears that the wind farms were not themselves damaged by the storms the effects of the control systems implemented to connect the wind components to the local grid and the interstate connectors was a failure to contain the problem which has a series of knock-on effects over a period of about 2 minutes that took the system down.

The implication is the the nature of wind farms, absent additional technology for managing supply consistency and frequency control, was set up to fail under the circumstances that prevailed during the storm.

Put simply, despite the renewables investment and the expensive electricity costs for the consumers, the grid as designed, implemented and, presumably, quality checked and signed off was simply not robust enough for the conditions.

You have to read a little between the lines but the message is that more traditional generation in the mix would have helped both stability during the event AND the efforts to get everything back on line for the consumers.

All of this led to some changes being made to some settings at some wind generation sites and some other belt and braces efforts to gain better control and limit the spread of any future problems around the grid.

In part the Musk battery PR gig is part of the bandage activity - presumably ignored for some reason when the drive to wind was initiated.

The reports of leasing Turkish Electricity Generator ships will be another angle on the same "get the public thinking we are doing something meaningful" PR trip.

Both will cost the State and therefore the consumers significant sums (unless Tesla make a complete mess of the installation contract details.)

The report, appears to be very carefully written in order to avoid pointing any finger of blame in any direction or directions, yet to indicate the nature of the problem areas without equivocation.

Clearly the SA grid, as it has evolved under the direction of local political policy directives, was not what was required. If the technology necessary to make it more failure resistant exists then we can presumable assume there was some failure of planning, design and investment.

If parts of the required technology do not currently exist - there are some hints that that might be the case - then the decision to develop the SA grid along the lines adopted may need to be questioned. Strongly.

Hopefully these matters will be well to the fore of the minds of the UK planners and regulators as they rush to meet decarbonisation targets set by failed politicians.

It would be nice to have some evidence that that is actually the case but I don't expect to find anything to that effect in the public domain.

FWIW I found this SA grid outage report analysis a short while ago. Just long enough ago to read it.

It seems my interpretation of the report, at its shallow level, concurs with this chap's reading of it too. And as far as I can tell he is someone with much much deeper knowledge, experience and credibility than me so I would commend you to read his opinion rather than mine.

http://www.pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/references/pfb_sa_b...

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Again I hate to say 'told you so' but whenever I mention how wind blows differently across borders, and how the major players are present in all (Iberdrola, WPD, Dong, EDF etc) they are all pushing around capacity over what is ultimately a 'mega-grid' via interconnectors.


Again - laughed at, told I am selling unicorns.

It IS happening, and the huge investments, financial deals and infrastructure money is on Interconnectors currently.

But just because they are doing it (or in the case of Germany, planning to do it) to try to balance systems or gain some commercial advantage because of their unique operational model does not mean is will be useful and commercially successful in the long term. It's a survival response encouraged by the EU as part of the "more integration" campaign.

Most of it, as I am sure you will agree, is either onshore or, in the case of the Iberian peninsular, increasingly Solar at rates that could be so cheap it they make North Sea offshore look expensive.

Let's assume the interconnector costs are necessary to have half a chance of making wide spread wind generation a reliable option (it's by no means a given). Then you have to add a proportion of the costs, capital and recurring, to the Cost of generation.

There seem to be only two drivers for the policy.

- the hope that a more reliable stable and therefore consistent supply can be delivered than seems to be possible without the connectors.

- a justification for offshore wind in the North Sea and Solar in the sunnier south as the solution to the "Save the planet" problem that has been adopted as a model for political career advancement. (Or something else if you prefer.)

And in the worst case scenario for which all the over capacity engineering is required ... the wind does not blow differently enough across borders for the interconnectors to make a difference that solves the problem.

On the other hand when there is a lot of excess electricity around that can be sold anywhere the chances of really making a mess of a local market business model will be increased.

Maybe the EU bureaucracy could simply take of the Electricity generation business and charge standard rates everywhere.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

But just because they are doing it (or in the case of Germany, planning to do it) to try to balance systems or gain some commercial advantage because of their unique operational model does not mean is will be useful and commercially successful in the long term. It's a survival response encouraged by the EU as part of the "more integration" campaign.

Thats a pretty naive stance or irrational sense of believe - is it because it has only just dawned on some ?
Multinational companies are using their various 'farms' to sell back to the greater grid.

LongQ said:

Most of it, as I am sure you will agree, is either onshore or, in the case of the Iberian peninsular, increasingly Solar at rates that could be so cheap it they make North Sea offshore look expensive.

Currently ? The thread is about the Future. I am aware that the subsea ones are less 'in the future' than is perhaps being dismissed off handedly

LongQ said:

Let's assume the interconnector costs are necessary to have half a chance of making wide spread wind generation a reliable option (it's by no means a given). Then you have to add a proportion of the costs, capital and recurring, to the Cost of generation.

Is that over and above what was deemed to have to be also be included in the cost of renewables? (the so called 'back up' power station / source)
or perhaps.... in lieu of ?
And cheaper.....

LongQ said:

There seem to be only two drivers for the policy.

In you opinion currently perhaps.
TBH - lots has been learnt that 'now' makes more sense......

LongQ said:

- the hope that a more reliable stable and therefore consistent supply can be delivered than seems to be possible without the connectors.

So more power generation / build.
At what fiscal price, to be clear ?

LongQ said:

- a justification for offshore wind in the North Sea and Solar in the sunnier south as the solution to the "Save the planet" problem that has been adopted as a model for political career advancement. (Or something else if you prefer.)

And in the worst case scenario for which all the over capacity engineering is required ... the wind does not blow differently enough across borders for the interconnectors to make a difference that solves the problem.

I've seen many posters on here say that.
Has anyone backed it up ? Recall the Siemens 'Power Wall' I mentioned before where ou can see the winds blowing across the world generating power?

If someone wants to show me how 'Renewables across a continent' fail collectively historically I would be more inclined to give the hands ini the air 'but, but, but' doubters a little more credence.

LongQ said:

On the other hand when there is a lot of excess electricity around that can be sold anywhere the chances of really making a mess of a local market business model will be increased.

Almost sounds like a fear of change creeping in.

LongQ said:

Maybe the EU bureaucracy could simply take of the Electricity generation business and charge standard rates everywhere.

And killing the commercial competitive market and the drive for cost reduction. Not smart really.

The big players are doing the continental wide collation of power and distribution - already.

Paddy,

I have yet to see a paper based on future predictions that does not agree that wind sourced energy cannot and does not fall to effectively nothing at some point over the whole of Europe. If you look at the figures for minimal generation, below likely lowest level demand, the number of times that not be available is quite significant.

The only solutions to the worst case situations, other than accepting it and living with the consequences, seem to be so over size the system so that most of the time it is generating far more output than can be consumed. Or, as an operational option, is curtailed.

The installed output capacity to achieve this seems to be at least 2.5 times maximum demand levels and the assumption that large amounts of interconnector capacity can be agreed upon and managed across whet are currently national borders (until the EU concept manages to break those down and convert Europe to a single state political and financial entity as originally envisaged.)

Meanwhile National energy security - presumably the subject of this thread - is entirely reliant (according to the Europe region models) on the integration of individual power generation policies by the various vested political interests of the nation states.

If you take, by way of example, the report produced by the Lappeenranta University in Finland that, notionally, models how a significant percentage of renewable energy targeted for deployment by 2030 (as per some country policies) might be made to work the clear result is that the entire system has to be designed (I use the term loosely) with far more generating potential than a non-wind and non-solar based system would require. In effect you have to build and install about 3 times the amount of plant to deal with intermittency and then deliver the interconnector capability to bring in all of the generation required locally form a distant location when conditions are not conducive to satisfying even basic level of demand locally.

All of this generation capacity then needs to be replaced every 20 years or so. 30 years if you want to work with lower LCoE numbers.


It's very difficult to believe that the socio-economic drain that such an approach would seem very likely to enforce on the European economy would be beneficial. Nor is it self evident that the approach would have moral high ground benefits compared to, say, nuclear generation as an alternative if people are so unwilling to deploy fossil based solutions to energy demand.

Even the Lappeenranta people admit that their much promoted and publicised report and interactive graphic

http://neocarbonenergy.fi/internetofenergy/

is not realistic as a possibility for 2030 but might be viable for 2050.

Looking at it the timeline display for the UK "area" is a puzzle. Rather a lot of negative overcapacity locally and a remarkably high expectation for onshore wind generation yet a remarkably low prediction for offshore. In fact almost none for the "British Isles". Which seems odd.

Still, it's a pretty enough graphic from a University and has been "cited" in many media reports around the world so I'm not about to question it.

See what you make of it.

As for comments like "fear of change" and similar - what has that got to do with anything?

Despair at the potential for politicians (or people elected to be politicians by what is claimed to be an "educated" public seemingly able to make some very interesting choices) to fail to have any clue OR the ability to think logically for themselves at the most basic level - possibly.

Concern for kids and, perhaps more importantly grandchildren who will reach adulthood when the results of the policies will be starting to bite hardest? Yes, what seems to be happening is not what one might have hoped for them - but then that's going to be their lives and their experiences and humans are adaptable to deal with such things.

Fear of change for me personally? Nope, providing the change has some hope of being positive and some evident benefits that can be clearly measured rather than some politically driven dogma.

In the past generation or so much of the world (by wealth if not headcount) has moved from "change nothing" to "change everything" often for the sake of it rather than for genuine change. The same changes come around in 20 to 30 year cycles suggesting that few things really change that much - certainly not in basic business practises that underpin our way of living.

However the potential for creating real chaos is never far away and every century or so some group or other manage to achieve such a result. It seems like the next major event may be imminent and has the potential to reach deeper into modern life style expectations than would have been possible a generation ago.

Part of me says that is not a great way to seek progress,

On the other hand I have in the past considered nihilism to be a logical human survival response and it still explains much in the 21st century world. So what the heck - let things roll and see what happens. In the end nothing really matters. We should not take life too seriously.

[XM5ER]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

A

It IS happening, and the huge investments, financial deals and infrastructure money is on Interconnectors currently.

Who pays?

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

Paddy,

I have yet to see a paper based on future predictions that does not agree that wind sourced energy cannot and does not fall to effectively nothing at some point over the whole of Europe. If you look at the figures for minimal generation, below likely lowest level demand, the number of times that not be available is quite significant.

to clarify - have you seen anything (resembling a fact / document / paper) to say that there are times when Europe wide Renewables do hit negligible ? I've only heard those against renewables suggest it as a scenario.

LongQ said:

The only solutions to the worst case situations, other than accepting it and living with the consequences, seem to be so over size the system so that most of the time it is generating far more output than can be consumed.

As happening.
Right now UK is consuming 33GW.
10% happens to be coming from Wind (3GW) - from 5.1GW of operational capacity
A further 5GW is ACTUALLY under construction - so will be online in under 2 years.
a further 10GW is ear marked for imminent consent / construction and will be online before the Nuclear build in 2025?

Round numbers - 20GW of capacity. Probably going to feed in 10-14GW on a regular basis.

LongQ said:

Or, as an operational option, is curtailed.

The installed output capacity to achieve this seems to be at least 2.5 times maximum demand levels and the assumption that large amounts of interconnector capacity can be agreed upon and managed across whet are currently national borders (until the EU concept manages to break those down and convert Europe to a single state political and financial entity as originally envisaged.)

Meanwhile National energy security - presumably the subject of this thread - is entirely reliant (according to the Europe region models) on the integration of individual power generation policies by the various vested political interests of the nation states.

If you take, by way of example, the report produced by the Lappeenranta University in Finland that, notionally, models how a significant percentage of renewable energy targeted for deployment by 2030 (as per some country policies) might be made to work the clear result is that the entire system has to be designed (I use the term loosely) with far more generating potential than a non-wind and non-solar based system would require. In effect you have to build and install about 3 times the amount of plant to deal with intermittency and then deliver the interconnector capability to bring in all of the generation required locally form a distant location when conditions are not conducive to satisfying even basic level of demand locally.

All of this generation capacity then needs to be replaced every 20 years or so. 30 years if you want to work with lower LCoE numbers.

Factored in - and reducing in LCOE costs. Nuclear is not reducing in costs is it ?

You want me to repost the links related to intermittency? OK., but not right at this moment.

You like the idea that the amount of generation required to be built is, more or less, able to generate 3 times as much output as can be consumed on a good day but naff all on a bad day?

We have a not unusual situation in these islands of seasonally variable demand but given that most summers are not all that hot and aircon is not a necessity we have to work with that anomaly. It provides the vendors with a clear opportunity for planned maintenance and that, hopefully, means better reliability when the output IS required. The plant typically survives for at least 40 years or usually more and relatively easy upgrades or modifications can be undertaken during that time on the same site in the same structures.

With an intermittent supply you need 3 times the capacity to cover the worst case scenarios all of it needing maintenance and having an expected life of 20 years - or 30 for LCoE calculation purposes. And as I understand it nearly all maintenance still has to be undertaken in summer months especially offshore. Maybe it would just be more cost effective to start the replacement cycle earlier?

It's almost the equivalent of going to buy a car and being told you have to buy 3 and pay the duties, taxes and maintenance on all of them. You don't need them unless they all have different fuels and only one of those can be guaranteed to be available when you need to top up.

Has no one considered how much early release of CO2 will arise as a result of the construction? Why are people not objecting to the acceleration of the "tipping point" arrival? And the use of finite materials during construction and use - let's not forget that as well since it's accepted as a problem when discussing fossil fuels.

If a triple capital expenditure can somehow be factored in as helping to reduce costs then I have to admit that we have a man maths genius somewhere in the industry. Maybe they could write a book about how to have 3 holidays a year and get paid for them. I bet they're are a wizz with loaves and fishes whenever they see a large crowd.

Still needs the backup though - oh well, I expect the cost can be produced from a hat somewhere with a wave of a wand.

As for Nuclear - there are parts of the world where is seems to be a popular option at the moment and the costs are not excessive.

No doubt, given the same sort of support that wind has had in recent decades, the same would be true in the UK. Except that is never likely to happen at any useful scale. At least not in the near future. It would be against policy and generate vitriolic responses for green lobbyists - probably because it would mean that their mates setting the policies had been replaced.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

If someone wants to show me how 'Renewables across a continent' fail collectively historically I would be more inclined to give the hands ini the air 'but, but, but' doubters a little more credence.

And killing the commercial competitive market and the drive for cost reduction. Not smart really.

The big players are doing the continental wide collation of power and distribution - already.

This brief analysis is based on limited data but is sufficient to demonstrate that offshore wind will not solve the problem of matching intermittent wind generation to demand, nor will it improve grid stability or energy security, and that claims to the contrary are delusional.

A final note. The recent Peak demand and the winter wind post addressed (and dismissed) the Met Office’s claim that UK wind speeds increased during peak demand periods on the coldest winter nights, thereby lessening the possibility of power outages. Do wind speeds increase during the coldest winter nights in Denmark? No, they continued to decrease there too during the 2012 cold spell. Even offshore wind showed no sign of a recovery:
http://euanmearns.com/can-offshore-wind-be-integra...

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

-
-
-
As happening.
Right now UK is consuming 33GW.
10% happens to be coming from Wind (3GW) - from 5.1GW of operational capacity
A further 5GW is ACTUALLY under construction - so will be online in under 2 years.
a further 10GW is ear marked for imminent consent / construction and will be online before the Nuclear build in 2025?

Round numbers - 20GW of capacity. Probably going to feed in 10-14GW on a regular basis.

-
-

Isn't total generating capacity for wind in the UK around 16GW?

[Mr GrimNasty]

You really are delusional Paddy, you can't power the world with renewables.

They are fundamentally inefficient, ineffective and vastly more expensive.

It doesn't matter what capacity you install - well apart from the fact you bring the grid even nearer to collapse, that matters.

You are a font of fraudulent data and opinions.

Anything that requires 100% back up is pointless - you only need the backup!

National grid status shows metered wind is currently producing 1.4GW of an installed capacity of what, 12GW.

That is pathetic. It is rare to sustain 5-6GW even.

All this is doing is making other sources like coal and gas run uneconomically.

It is insanely stupid.

[V8 Fettler]

Mr GrimNasty said:

You really are delusional Paddy, you can't power the world with renewables.

They are fundamentally inefficient, ineffective and vastly more expensive.

It doesn't matter what capacity you install - well apart from the fact you bring the grid even nearer to collapse, that matters.

You are a font of fraudulent data and opinions.

Anything that requires 100% back up is pointless - you only need the backup!

National grid status shows metered wind is currently producing 1.4GW of an installed capacity of what, 12GW.

That is pathetic. It is rare to sustain 5-6GW even.

All this is doing i making other sources like coal and gas run uneconomically.

It is insanely stupid.

16GW according to http://www.renewableuk.com/page/UKWEDhome

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

More Power generation in a single 2017 project than all of 2012 operating put together.

Don't use bad data as you source to make the argument,

Paddy,

Could you take a look at the interactive model I posted a link for earlier and maybe critique some of the numbers.

It purports to be a model of how thing might work for a primarily renewables based elec generation for Europe in 2030.

The figures for the British Isles seem to suggest that they worked with numbers that have something like 70 GW capacity onshore and 6 GW offshore.

Might just be wrong labelling but it's part of a paper from Nov 2016 that is meant to be modelling the future and as it comes from a Finnish University department recognised for work in this area I'm not inclined to suggest it's wrong without getting a second opinion.

What can you tell us?

[WatchfulEye]

Here's is National Grid's latest take on the issue, in the form of their "future energy scenarios" document:

http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1244/final-fes-2...

[LongQ]

WatchfulEye said:

Here's is National Grid's latest take on the issue, in the form of their "future energy scenarios" document:

http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1244/final-fes-2...

After a quick glance through so far - it looks interesting.

[LongQ]

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

More Power generation in a single 2017 project than all of 2012 operating put together.

Don't use bad data as you source to make the argument,

Paddy,

Could you take a look at the interactive model I posted a link for earlier and maybe critique some of the numbers.

It purports to be a model of how thing might work for a primarily renewables based electricity generation for Europe in 2030.

The figures for the British Isles seem to suggest that they worked with numbers that have something like 70 GW capacity onshore and 6 GW offshore.

Might just be wrong labelling but it's part of a paper from Nov 2016 that is meant to be modelling the future and as it comes from a Finnish University department recognised for work in this area I'm not inclined to suggest it's wrong without getting a second opinion.

What can you tell us?

Paddy, surely that first line of yours in the first quote should read "More POTENTIAL generation....." should it not?

I found the answer to my question about the model and its strange numbers for onshore and offshore wind.

Apparently the model picks the sources of supply and decided that, absent any social rejection, onshore wind would dominate the expanded capacity and offshore would not (or should not) have much presence by 2030 (in reality more likely 2050).

So making a few guesses you will be OK up to retirement - if there is still such a thing as retirement by then.

Another interesting aspect of the well received (apparently) Lappeenranta work at the end of last year is that there is NO nuclear generation at all.

It seems that input from Greenpeace, WWF and the German Advisory Council on Global Change said Nuclear, despite its "clean" claim in CO2 terms, would not be accepted and so they disappeared it.

I find that a little surprising and wonder why they did not include it but offer the option to exclude it from the interactive graphic. Too complex perhaps.

As far as I can see the graphic is not dynamic - it reports values frpm the pre-calculated file if the value is left active but does not allow sources to be added or subtracted and then show the results. Over or under capacity for example. Or, if it does, it's not obvious.

However one can look at the modelled demand and the modelled generation by resource and eyeball the fit or get the values by placing the cursor appropriately on the screen.There are plenty of cases where one can see that pure wind numbers, with or without solar and either by country or the whole of a region, are very low compared to modelled demand and in several cases non-existent, especially at local levels. The numbers have some averaging applied by hour and some aggregation by (gridded) location to there could be more specific spot generation issues that would need to be managed from a distributed grid perspective.

Looking at things the other way they have calculated a number for the maximum potential excess generation. (Oddly I don't see anything for shortfall numbers.)

The over capacity is easily followed on the display when it exists. Which is quite often and sometimes by quite a lot. When it is not visible one might assume a balance has been found. However as it's not a dynamic display of the ticked values alone the disappearance of excess generation is as likely to mean a short fall, compared to modelled demand, as it is to represent a match with no excess.

There are some leaps of faith required in terms of what technologies they have included and what has been left out but as a basis for discussion it has its place.

http://neocarbonenergy.fi/internetofenergy/

This may also be of interest. There are some other links at the bottom of the page for this one.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315132185...

Edited by LongQ on Sunday 23 July 23:19

[LongQ]

Hmm.

Seems my previous post was indigestible.

Try this one. It's not more than a little musky.


https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297414


Apparently our Elon believes that 100 sq miles (or is that meant to be miles square?) of solar panels and single square mile of batteries would offer enough electricity generation to power the entire USA.

Hmm.

How many above ground hyperloop tubes would he need to for them to provide enough surface area to equate to 100 sq whatever miles of solar panels?

Presumably he is serious so I suppose it's worth considering and discussing here?

Edited by LongQ on Monday 24th July 03:43