The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I don't know the correlation or numbers behind it, but the facts of weather do bear on this.

Ok, that's fair enough.

Here's a recent analysis related to the topic.

http://euanmearns.com/peak-demand-and-the-winter-w...

There are some reports and data sources linked within and you might be able to use those to find references to other sources that give alternative or augmented views but that are not readily available or easily found without being close enough to the industry to have inside knowledge.

There are also what may be interesting links in the comments section.

[silentbrown]

s2art said:

For solar in winter short daylight hours, low angle of sun. A small fraction of what is generated during summer. The problem is insurmountable. The UK is simply not a good fit for solar in any quantity.

You're forgetting that we already have to manage a wide range of generating systems with equally unpredictable performance, and that demand is also variable and unpredictable. Conventional plants have unplanned shutdowns, and Nuclear ones will have statutory outages lasting months for inspection/repairs. Planning for that is hardly different to planning for solar's lower capacity factor over winter months.

Every energy source has downsides, and it's all to easy to pick holes in any one individually and say it's useless because it can't be used to replace every other power source. They each can have their place in an integrated system - as does demand-side management.

[carl_w]

I seem to recall writing something about this for GCSE Science nearly 30 years ago pointing out that nuclear fission was the only short-to-medium term option (fusion was as much on the cards then as it is now). Since then I think only Sizewell B has been built.

Here's also a pic of an offshore windfarm in the English Channel. The scale of it was amazing -- we went round about four times.

[Ali G]

Hope it works!

[Sylvaforever]

What is lamentable is the fact we have effectively destroyed our coal stocks [dirty coal yes] by flooding through a policy of yes you've guessed it climate change political correctness/slavishly following EU directive.
Making power from wind is pretty cool but it has always been an element in the overall power generating scheme

[LongQ]

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I don't know the correlation or numbers behind it, but the facts of weather do bear on this.

Ok, that's fair enough.

Here's a recent analysis related to the topic.

http://euanmearns.com/peak-demand-and-the-winter-w...

There are some reports and data sources linked within and you might be able to use those to find references to other sources that give alternative or augmented views but that are not readily available or easily found without being close enough to the industry to have inside knowledge.

There are also what may be interesting links in the comments section.

Just to help here ...

https://www.vgb.org/en/studie_windenergie_deutschl...


The current version of this report is in German - except for the first column on the first page, the Abstract, which is in English.

It makes interesting reading.

A full English version is in preparation with availability expected in August.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

silentbrown said:

You're forgetting that we already have to manage a wide range of generating systems with equally unpredictable performance, and that demand is also variable and unpredictable. Conventional plants have unplanned shutdowns, and Nuclear ones will have statutory outages lasting months for inspection/repairs. Planning for that is hardly different to planning for solar's lower capacity factor over winter months.

Every energy source has downsides, and it's all to easy to pick holes in any one individually and say it's useless because it can't be used to replace every other power source. They each can have their place in an integrated system - as does demand-side management.

Absolutely - and ultimately the sensible stance.

Silentbrown reiterates what most think. However we seem to have policy tendencies around the world that dictate 100% renewables being the only option. Studies have been undertaken to establish what would be required to satisfy this level of legal requirement so presumably some people think the politicians might head for such a target.

So the question is at what level of mix should the populace step in and point out that they are barking mad?

That's a technical question of the sort that seems appropriate for this thread.

The UK had a buffer generation policy of, iirc, 15% over capacity compared to anticipated demand as an operational objective for many decades to cater for both unplanned outages and extreme demand situations.

That said unplanned outages were typically likely to be quite small risk factors compared to overall capacity so long as fuel supplies were not constrained for extended periods.

In recent times the buffer capacity has shrunk due lack of replacement investment due to expected returns from wind power (primarily) and reducing demand due to several reasons including some improved efficiencies but also a lot of heavy users leaving the market almost completely.

Some steps were taken a couple of years ago when things looked really tight to establish some emergency short term capacity that could be activated on demand for short periods. This is mainly diesel powered. It is paid for whether needed or not.

We know that solar, for direct use without the additional cost and recurring overheads of storage, has a partly predictable delivery model but one that is affected by weather conditions, potentially minute by minute even in that daylight window of delivery. At the UK latitude potential delivery is high when we don't really need it (unless aircon at work becomes normal due to rising temperatures) and offers almost nothing when we do (winter, especially the long nights).

Wind offers potential that is marginally predictable a short time ahead, every day for 24 hours, at least in theory. But there are times, Europe wide, when output is extremely minimal and those times can last for extended periods - upto several days in a worst case. So to be certain that a reasonable demand level can be delivered under the worst conditions - which is pretty much what an energy generation licence ties the industry to in most developed countries since the idea of widespread power failures is far to politically and fiscally costly to contemplate - the is a logical point to be made that the minimum safe backup capacity needs to be 100% the locally required renewables capacity since the renewable have the potential to deliver zero effective output due to reasons entirely outside anyone's control.

So the underlying question then becomes - how do you justify duplicating the entire renewables capacity using different approaches when, in effect, the renewables components are made redundant by the backup capacity and its investment needs.

Diesel generation farms are probably the cheapest option. However the scale would have to be massive.

Alternatives would be nuclear (and thus CO2 free - which seems to be the only focus of the exercise in the first place at this time) but if build Nuclear (either Hinckley Point scale or SMRs) why would you then need wind and solar at all?

[silentbrown]

Sylvaforever]What is lamentable is the fact we have effectively destroyed our coal stocks [dirty coal yes said:

by flooding through a policy of yes you've

Destroyed our stocks - What little we have left is still in the ground, surely?

We're importing about 3 times as much coal as we produce, so blaming climate policy is a long way off the whole story.

[s2art]

silentbrown said:

s2art said:

For solar in winter short daylight hours, low angle of sun. A small fraction of what is generated during summer. The problem is insurmountable. The UK is simply not a good fit for solar in any quantity.

You're forgetting that we already have to manage a wide range of generating systems with equally unpredictable performance, and that demand is also variable and unpredictable. Conventional plants have unplanned shutdowns, and Nuclear ones will have statutory outages lasting months for inspection/repairs. Planning for that is hardly different to planning for solar's lower capacity factor over winter months.

Every energy source has downsides, and it's all to easy to pick holes in any one individually and say it's useless because it can't be used to replace every other power source. They each can have their place in an integrated system - as does demand-side management.

Nope. Its very different. Effectively we have to have 100% backup as both wind and solar can become negligible contributors for days at a time during winter, whereas conventional plant is far more predictable. For many years we only needed approx 15% surplus. (less now and risky because of it). If you have 100% backup, why not just keep the conventional supply switched on, because if not the price of electricity becomes a lot more expensive.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

s2art said:

silentbrown said:

s2art said:

But how much power? Producing a few Watts is neither here nor there.

It's about 25% of the summer output, I believe? Shorter days, more cloud cover and lower sun angles all impact it (although in commercial installations I guess is possible to adjust for sun angle)

Right. And that might be optimistic for the north where snow cover is more likely. at times. So any significant solar power generation fed into the grid undergoes a huge seasonal variation, and whats worse is that it is at its lowest contribution when the need is highest. The implication is that traditional power stations will be needed to fill the gap in winter but would be idling during summer. And that means high electricity prices.

But.... when Solar is the lowest, winter, Wind is the highest.
A balance.

There's no balance on a cold, dark, still and frosty winter's evening. Zero solar, minimal wind and peak demand.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

s2art said:

silentbrown said:

s2art said:

But how much power? Producing a few Watts is neither here nor there.

It's about 25% of the summer output, I believe? Shorter days, more cloud cover and lower sun angles all impact it (although in commercial installations I guess is possible to adjust for sun angle)

Right. And that might be optimistic for the north where snow cover is more likely. at times. So any significant solar power generation fed into the grid undergoes a huge seasonal variation, and whats worse is that it is at its lowest contribution when the need is highest. The implication is that traditional power stations will be needed to fill the gap in winter but would be idling during summer. And that means high electricity prices.

But.... when Solar is the lowest, winter, Wind is the highest.
A balance.

There's no balance on a cold, dark, still and frosty winter's evening. Zero solar, minimal wind and peak demand.

Which is why I keep repeating the 'Onshore' ones are absolutely minimal going forward in scale (individual and collectively)

The aerial image above don't forget is a 'old' field ini size and scale.

Top of my head, theres circa 8GW to be installed in the next 5 years around an afar off in the UK waters and system.

Not often a dead calm 'out there' and 'everywhere'

What is the minimum utilisation ratio for offshore to date?

[Mr GrimNasty]

Another report issued recently confirmed 100% back up is required for renewables, that in itself makes them futile.

Offshore wind is twice as expensive as onshore but does not have twice the capacity factor (43/25% from memory).

Comparing balancing the intermittent and not dispatchable nature and sheer unpredictability of wind/solar to planned or unplanned shutdown of other sources is completely ludicrous. It is also impractical and wasteful having the generation a long way from the grid and the towns where the energy is required. The energy produced by Nuclear/coal/gas etc. is controllable, wind is not.

You cannot build enough windmills to ensure continuity of supply - anticyclonic weather means the whole lot stop countrywide, even Europe wide, stop producing energy all at once.

".....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."

http://euanmearns.com/can-offshore-wind-be-integra...

And yet a few cheap CCGT plants can replace all the windmills for a fraction of the cost (true cost, not the fraudulent accounting usually quoted).

Wind/solar provides energy randomly, not when it is ACTUALLY required, you cannot ramp it up near instantaneously to meet demand.

Any sort of buffering (storage) make the economics even more suicidal.

Wind and solar has already massively increased your electricity bills, and you haven't seen nothing yet, the costs of existing installations haven't even fully fed trough yet. The cost relationship is obvious.



And don't believe the lie of reducing costs for offshore wind, the latest offshore farm is one of the most expensive ever.

The island of El Hierro in the Canary Islands was to be a show-case of 100% wind power for electricity. They are self-contained and have very low energy demand. Yet they have had to run diesel generators for more than 60% of their power needs. And the upfront cost of all the 'green' hardware is massively uneconomic. If they can't even do it there, there is no chance anywhere else.

http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-june-2017-performa...

Windmill companies and their proponents are making a fortune out of subsidies - don't listen to the lies of vested interests like Paddy.

[garagewidow]

^yep making money eclipses everything,

you'll never convince the green lobby cause all they see are majestic silent windmills creating free energy.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Not often a dead calm 'out there' and 'everywhere'

does not have to be dead calm, just wind speed below the useful threshold for generating electricity. there are many days where that will happen,both summer and winter.

[oyster]

Mr GrimNasty said:

But that is free market capitalism, the very thing that climate change was invented to destroy.

Who invented it?

When?

Why is this not widespread knowledge?

[Sylvaforever]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

wc98 said:

does not have to be dead calm, just wind speed below the useful threshold for generating electricity. there are many days where that will happen,both summer and winter.

Threshold for power generation of a modern turbine ?

I used to know random facts like that when in the industry but annualised hours1 did for me in the end..

[alangla]

V8 Fettler said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

s2art said:

silentbrown said:

s2art said:

But how much power? Producing a few Watts is neither here nor there.

It's about 25% of the summer output, I believe? Shorter days, more cloud cover and lower sun angles all impact it (although in commercial installations I guess is possible to adjust for sun angle)

Right. And that might be optimistic for the north where snow cover is more likely. at times. So any significant solar power generation fed into the grid undergoes a huge seasonal variation, and whats worse is that it is at its lowest contribution when the need is highest. The implication is that traditional power stations will be needed to fill the gap in winter but would be idling during summer. And that means high electricity prices.

But.... when Solar is the lowest, winter, Wind is the highest.
A balance.

There's no balance on a cold, dark, still and frosty winter's evening. Zero solar, minimal wind and peak demand.

The thing that scares me with reliance on renewables is a repeat of the winters of 2009/10 or 2010/11 - weeks of snow cover, daytime high temps of about -10, night-time lows of -20, calm and dark. Demand would be sky high (albeit more for gas than electricity) and you'd get next to nothing from solar or wind. Cold at that level might also affect hydro/pumped storage. I know it's unusual, but it's a real scenario from recent memory.

If anyone's forgotten - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2009%E2%80... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010%E2%80...

[Sylvaforever]

alangla said:

The thing that scares me with reliance on renewables is a repeat of the winters of 2009/10 or 2010/11 - weeks of snow cover, daytime high temps of about -10, night-time lows of -20, calm and dark. Demand would be sky high (albeit more for gas than electricity) and you'd get next to nothing from solar or wind. Cold at that level might also affect hydro/pumped storage. I know it's unusual, but it's a real scenario from recent memory.

If anyone's forgotten - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2009%E2%80... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010%E2%80...

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

s2art said:

silentbrown said:

s2art said:

But how much power? Producing a few Watts is neither here nor there.

It's about 25% of the summer output, I believe? Shorter days, more cloud cover and lower sun angles all impact it (although in commercial installations I guess is possible to adjust for sun angle)

Right. And that might be optimistic for the north where snow cover is more likely. at times. So any significant solar power generation fed into the grid undergoes a huge seasonal variation, and whats worse is that it is at its lowest contribution when the need is highest. The implication is that traditional power stations will be needed to fill the gap in winter but would be idling during summer. And that means high electricity prices.

But.... when Solar is the lowest, winter, Wind is the highest.
A balance.

There's no balance on a cold, dark, still and frosty winter's evening. Zero solar, minimal wind and peak demand.

Which is why I keep repeating the 'Onshore' ones are absolutely minimal going forward in scale (individual and collectively)

The aerial image above don't forget is a 'old' field ini size and scale.

Top of my head, theres circa 8GW to be installed in the next 5 years around an afar off in the UK waters and system.

Not often a dead calm 'out there' and 'everywhere'

Paddy,

Not often is not the same as "never".

Moreover a "dead calm" is not the only criterion that would qualify as a problem. Low output over a wide area - not at all unusual - would be enough to cause a problem absent full cover backup facilities of some sort.

Alternatively we re-organise the way our lives operate and change people's expectations about the availability of on-demand energy. All types. After all, as things stand in the modern building regulations, no electricity mean no working natural gas appliances and likely no water supply either.

Will people find that acceptable for extended periods in the middle of winter?

Would the fully interconnected economy survive?

Our politicians seem to be setting policy engineering for a single point of failure.

Is that a surprise to anyone?

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

So for clarity now, it seems the goal posts have been moved by the 'Anti Renewables' lot ?

Is it now accepted that the renewable energy is cheaper than Fossil and Nuclear ?

This results in the direction of the argument is about the continuity of supply ?


Just so I know what backtracking has been made by some of the 'its too expensive lot'

What is the minimum utilisation ratio for offshore to date?