The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[LongQ]

babatunde said:

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

Hmm.

It's a bit more interactive than that but the key point from above is that the outcome of their model, ostensibly for 2030 100% renewables but by their own comments more likely for 2050 at best, comes up with something like 8Gw offshore and 70Gw onshore for the UK fleet as part of a wide area energy trading region if the 100% concept, seemingly being promoted by quite a few European politicians, is to have any chance of working at all.

If that is the case - its already wildly inaccurate, isn't it ?

Me_previous_page said:

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?

so there will be 20GW by 2025 offshore.

Onshore has more or less halted.

Well as I recall I had mentioned that as the possible basis for your likely interest in commenting in an earlier post.

Wildly inaccurate the model may be but that is the solution it came up with for a path to presumably "cost effective" 100% renewables by 2030 to satisfy the objectives (at least when compared to the weather recorded in 2005) .

One might question the model concept (from several angles perhaps depending upon one's point of view) but not the results that is produces just because they suggest the current direction may be wrong. 2030 is just about far enough ahead to contemplate a change of direction and just a single 20year life cycle for most of the offshore wind.

Such are the joys of models.

But has it raised any comments in the industry?

Bloody wind again, why can't it stop blowing

this isn't a model

New figures published this week by WWF Scotland based on data provided by WeatherEnergy found that the month of June saw wind turbines generate around 1,039,001 MWh (megawatt-hours) of electricity for the National Grid, the distribution network company that runs the UK electricity grid. This amounted to, on average, enough electricity to provide for the electricity needs of 118% of Scottish households, or nearly 3 million homes. Further, wind energy generated enough electricity to supply more than all of Scotland’s national demand for 6 days out of the month of June. ....

Yes I know subsidies make this invalid or something like that....

Have you got a link to any of the data sets?

The WWF page seems to offer only their wildlife sponsoring activity, assuming that's what it is.

weatherenergy offers nothing that I can see that relates to the current year and previously clearly states that what it offers are estimates although one migth, eventually, be able to work out from various metered sources how much grid connected wind turbines were able generate in the period.

Of course "were able to generate" is by no means the entire story related to trying to balance renewables generation between "potential" and "actual" results for electricity supply as a service.


ETA: For those with an enquiring mind here is the cut and paste of the press release as published by the Independent and tweeted by no less an organisation that .... WWF Scotland and thence re-tweeted by Weather Energy.

There a really nice tourist picture of Stirling Castle at the top of the piece. I probably resonates with those recent concerns about tourists not bothering to visit Scotland as much as they used to.

I mean, even if the Euro to Sterling exchange rate is favourable all those Dutch and Italian registered campers that one used to see are probably heading for Germany if they want to look at a sea of Wind turbines. Save the cost of the ferry and a very long drive.

Edited by LongQ on Monday 24th July 23:49

[babatunde]

LongQ said:

Have you got a link to any of the data sets?

The WWF page seems to offer only their wildlife sponsoring activity, assuming that's what it is.

weatherenergy offers nothing that I can see that relates to the current year and previously clearly states that what it offers are estimates although one migth, eventually, be able to work out from various metered sources how much grid connected wind turbines were able generate in the period.

Of course "were able to generate" is by no means the entire story related to trying to balance renewables generation between "potential" and "actual" results for electricity supply as a service.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-renewable-wind-energy-power-electricity-three-million-homes-118-per-cent-of-households-a7855846.html
Is a good starting point, of course everyone quoted there including the Minister might be lying and seeing that WeatherEnergy is sponsored by "the evil EU" who have a vested interest in misleading us into renewable energy.... it might all be made up

If you are really vested in finding out if they are lying, they have downloadable data from Jan 2016 going back a few years, so I'm sure that data can be cross referenced with other sources.

[LongQ]

babatunde said:

LongQ said:

Have you got a link to any of the data sets?

The WWF page seems to offer only their wildlife sponsoring activity, assuming that's what it is.

weatherenergy offers nothing that I can see that relates to the current year and previously clearly states that what it offers are estimates although one migth, eventually, be able to work out from various metered sources how much grid connected wind turbines were able generate in the period.

Of course "were able to generate" is by no means the entire story related to trying to balance renewables generation between "potential" and "actual" results for electricity supply as a service.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-renewable-wind-energy-power-electricity-three-million-homes-118-per-cent-of-households-a7855846.html
Is a good starting point, of course everyone quoted there including the Minister might be lying and seeing that WeatherEnergy is sponsored by "the evil EU" who have a vested interest in misleading us into renewable energy.... it might all be made up

If you are really vested in finding out if they are lying, they have downloadable data from Jan 2016 going back a few years, so I'm sure that data can be cross referenced with other sources.

Yes, I saw all f that. Just wondered what WWF were using and whether the rather confused Independent piece (see some pertinent comments attached to it) could be more clearly interpreted.

The thing is though it tells us nothing about the potential to match supply to demand. There are many such pieces published - especially by WWF Scotland - and they always seem to avoid such discussions.

Most of the academic feasibility study write ups that I have seen suggest that the way to get 100% (or close to it) renewables to have any chance of working most of the time is to vastly over-provision as your system design starting point. So in effect you have to build in huge redundancy to have a hope of making the schemes work.

We are told by luminaries like James Hansen (I assume everyone has heard of James Hansen?) that we must not only stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere right now but should in fact be removing it as quickly as possible.

Hansen hates coal, loves nuclear. He is not too keen on turbines based on passed writings and comments.

Investing in technology that calls for the scrapping of existing, CO2 invested plant and buildings and replacing it with technology that requires the use of vast amounts of steel and concrete, etc., or other materials in the case of solar, all of which will generate additional CO2 output right now, and more than likely require the whole exercise to be repeated every 20 years or so, seems to be counter to the message of desperation being touted.

It is, quite simply, extremely illogical.

How has this come to be?

[V8 Fettler]

babatunde said:

Bloody wind again, why can't it stop blowing

this isn't a model

New figures published this week by WWF Scotland based on data provided by WeatherEnergy found that the month of June saw wind turbines generate around 1,039,001 MWh (megawatt-hours) of electricity for the National Grid, the distribution network company that runs the UK electricity grid. This amounted to, on average, enough electricity to provide for the electricity needs of 118% of Scottish households, or nearly 3 million homes. Further, wind energy generated enough electricity to supply more than all of Scotland’s national demand for 6 days out of the month of June. ....

Yes I know subsidies make this invalid or something like that....

What happens when wind is minimal?

[durbster]

V8 Fettler said:

What happens when wind is minimal?

The world figured out ways to keep a consistent supply of water regardless of rainfall, so I'm sure we can figure this out.

It seems we can certainly generate enough power but we can't store it, so I was pleased to see the investment into batteries announced yesterday.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-bec...

Research and development into storage and transportation of energy is surely where the answer lies, over and above harnessing it in the first place.

[alangla]

durbster said:

Research and development into storage and transportation of energy is surely where the answer lies, over and above harnessing it in the first place.

It seems that as well as the research into batteries, we probably also need to look at building more pumped storage. Other than Cruachan/Dinorwig, are there any suitable (hopefully NIMBY free) locations in the UK? Are there even any existing hydro stations that could be converted to pumped storage? The only one I can think of round here might be Sloy, but that's currently only 150MW apparently, not sure how much more capacity you could get out of it without flooding Loch Lomond.

[Tuna]

durbster said:

The world figured out ways to keep a consistent supply of water regardless of rainfall, so I'm sure we can figure this out.

It seems we can certainly generate enough power but we can't store it, so I was pleased to see the investment into batteries announced yesterday.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-bec...

Research and development into storage and transportation of energy is surely where the answer lies, over and above harnessing it in the first place.

We're very far behind the US, China and Japan, so it's a fantasy to think a relatively small investment like this will do anything significant. Storage remains a huge issue and simply hasn't got the scale to go beyond a few hours' worth of demand management at present.

[silentbrown]

There's Llyn Stwlan too. (Ffestiniog)

The Croesor valley below Cnicht was a possible candidate when Dinorwig was being planned.

The problem with pumped storage locations is that because they require significant elevation between upper and lower pools, they're inevitably in 'mountain' territory that has (hopefully) high levels of environmental protection.

Small-scale pumped scheme above Llanberis in Glyn Rhonwy here. http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/1...

(The wisdom of using a quarry that was used for nerve gas storage post WW2 is another issue entirely...)

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

The thing is we might think it's a ridiculous model - for different reasons most likely - but that perhaps misses the point of models of this nature.

This was not a prediction of the future per se but rather a "given what we know of current and somewhat likely future technology, what would be an option set that could lead to a way of delivering 100% renewables powered electricity generation world wide" (by 2030 but let's not get too fixated on that date - it just happens to be the date that mad politicians are fixated about for whatever their personal reasons might be.)

IF their modelling is correct for some future point THEN we must assume that the current efforts and the expectations that stem from them are likely wrong OR will mostly have only a 1 generation lifespan.

On the other hand if the modelled conclusion are wrong BUT are still contributing to long term policy planning a lot of time and effort and that strange stuff called money will be misdirected in the one or two decades.

Yet 'what is actually happening out there' seems to evade you / the precious Lappern-report.

Take Germany for example :

Germany Could Exceed Its 2020 Offshore Wind Target

Headline para "German government’s goal of 6.5GW of grid-connected offshore wind power by 2020 could be surpassed as the industry could have 7.7GW connected to the grid by that time, according to a report from national industry organisations. "

I'm not sure where they got their data from - but the fact that it bears no resemblance as far as I can see makes it very irrelevant. In the real world. Which is where the problem exists.


So the speed of build / deployment / connection to the grid across Europe is greater / faster than predicted 5 years ago, and the prices set as targets for 2020, have already been beaten in 2017.


Progress.

Paddy,

The Laappeenranta report is not "precious" to me but as I have pointed out previously it seemed to receive a lot of positive comments from the renewables camp when it was released late last year. Hence why it came to people's attention. It is also intended to be quite accessible and at least they have fairly clearly identified their sources and made the base data available.

It's worth a read so you can fisk it fully.

[RizzoTheRat]

alangla said:

It seems that as well as the research into batteries, we probably also need to look at building more pumped storage. Other than Cruachan/Dinorwig, are there any suitable (hopefully NIMBY free) locations in the UK? Are there even any existing hydro stations that could be converted to pumped storage? The only one I can think of round here might be Sloy, but that's currently only 150MW apparently, not sure how much more capacity you could get out of it without flooding Loch Lomond.

How efficient is pumped storage compared to batteries? Presumably there's quite a lot of losses in pumping, generation, and drag in pipes, and of course they're expensive to build, but then again you don't need relatively exotic metals as in batteries.

I quite like Musk's vision of houses having their own batteries that ballance the load by people buying cheap electricity at night, and using it during the day, but that doesn't really help with a week long lull in wind/solar.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Briefly if interested.


Factored in obviously in the lifecycle costs - O&M is circa 25% of the LCOE model for offshore, less for onshore.
For ever 30/40 WTG offshore consider there will be a fast aluminium catamaran (CTV) designed to transit men daily around the wind farm, push on the tower and allow them access via a ladder.
The Maintenance is more or less a daily thing to keep things checked and ticking over. - preventative maintenance

So 'highly inaccessible' isn't really accurate. The Far off floating ones may pose a different problem





Decommissioning is done in a similar fashion to installation.
Big crane ship, unbolt, and pull the foundation from the soil / sub sea cut 5m below the mudline.

nope, they won't be happily sailing round the offshore farms every day twirling their grease guns with gay abandon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2dv57CpT-s

i would think those in charge of the maintenance will have a rough idea of how many maintenance days they can get access due to weather every year from historical weather info, they just won't know which days. if those big cats are subcontracted for the maintenance i suppose some form of yearly contract will be negotiated as they are hugely expensive to run. i can't imagine them sitting around fully crewed for weeks on end waiting on the wind dropping (how ironic) to allow access.

good to know the decommissioning is fairly simple .the major concern i have in that area is will those currently responsible for it be around when it is due to start ? something we won't know until the time comes. to be fair without maintenance i have a feeling the north sea would turn them into nice offshore reefs in short order, a genuine contribution to the environment we could all be happy with

[silentbrown]

RizzoTheRat said:

How efficient is pumped storage compared to batteries? Presumably there's quite a lot of losses in pumping, generation, and drag in pipes, and of course they're expensive to build, but then again you don't need relatively exotic metals as in batteries.

I quite like Musk's vision of houses having their own batteries that ballance the load by people buying cheap electricity at night, and using it during the day, but that doesn't really help with a week long lull in wind/solar.

Dinorwig is about 75% efficient, I think. Tesla Powerwall claims 92%+

But the inefficiency probably isn't a big deal for either, because you're typically "charging" them with excess electricity...

[Ali G]

Wind really hammering out the power again..

Under two percent of demand @ 0.72 GW.

Even the Dutch interconnect is fairing better at 1 GW.

So much for wind generating anything 'surplus' in the foreseeable.

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

[Tuna]

RizzoTheRat said:

How efficient is pumped storage compared to batteries? Presumably there's quite a lot of losses in pumping, generation, and drag in pipes, and of course they're expensive to build, but then again you don't need relatively exotic metals as in batteries.

I quite like Musk's vision of houses having their own batteries that ballance the load by people buying cheap electricity at night, and using it during the day, but that doesn't really help with a week long lull in wind/solar.

Efficiency is utterly irrelevant - it's cost per kWh that decides how good grid scale storage is. If it costs me a million pounds to store 3kWh at 100% efficiency, or £10,000 to store 100kWh at 50% efficiency, the lower cost option is obviously vastly preferable. At present, batteries do not scale well, and the facilities to maintain a large battery array are complex, expensive and have a relatively short life span.

[Wayoftheflower]

Ali G said:

Wind really hammering out the power again..

Under two percent of demand @ 0.72 GW.

Even the Dutch interconnect is fairing better at 1 GW.

So much for wind generating anything 'surplus' in the foreseeable.

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Fortunate that Solar is doing well at 5+ GW then isn't it.

[Ali G]

Wayoftheflower said:

Fortunate that Solar is doing well at 5+ GW then isn't it.

Which will be zero tonight.

[Wayoftheflower]

Ali G said:

Which will be zero tonight.

A lot like the power consumption of offices around the nation.

[Ali G]

Wayoftheflower said:

Ali G said:

Which will be zero tonight.

A lot like the power consumption of offices around the nation.

Not during winter...

You expect solar to have its peak around this time of year - from here until next year, it will become less effective, and is of little use even now.

[Wayoftheflower]

Ali G said:

and is of little use even now.

Supplying 11% of demand right now. Interesting definition of "little use"

[anonymous-user]

Wayoftheflower said:

Ali G said:

Wind really hammering out the power again..

Under two percent of demand @ 0.72 GW.

Even the Dutch interconnect is fairing better at 1 GW.

So much for wind generating anything 'surplus' in the foreseeable.

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Fortunate that Solar is doing well at 5+ GW then isn't it.

And is not real time, is an estimate, and an overestimate at that, in addition to the minor night time issues