The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[turbobloke]

More good news for some - for whatever temporary reason.

Green Flop: Saudi Arabia Shelves $200 Billion Solar Project
Saudi Arabia has put on hold a $200 billion plan with SoftBank Group Corp. to build the world’s biggest solar-power-generation project, Saudi government officials said.
Date: 01/10/18
The Wall Street Journal

[turbobloke]

Double dip.

Vestas To Lay Off 400 Workers In Europe As Wind Sector Declines
Wind turbine maker Vestas is laying off 400 mostly white-collar employees in Europe, after a slowdown in onshore wind installations there hit the revenues of the Danish group.
Date: 30/09/18
Financial Times

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

Condi said:

Oh look, we're back to discussing 1970's coal policies again.....

Even Corbyn, who wants to take the country right back to the 1970's has more progressive energy policies than the contributors on this thread.

Although even the most evangelistic wind support has to be sceptical of his promise to build 50 gig of offshore wind!!

For the short term, I would prefer cheap, reliable and robust electricity generation provided by coal. Others may prefer expensive, unreliable and unstable electricity generation by wind.

I will settle for a sensible mix.

[LoonyTunes]

Yeah, because the coal industry is doing brilliantly - especially in Trumps heartland..

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=coal+lay+offs&am...

[hidetheelephants]

The watermelons are at it again; 'ZOMG atomic mud will engulf Cardiff and cause billions of pounds of improvements!'

I'm surprised they didn't seek a quote from Busby or Large, they can be relied upon to speculate about utter nonsense til the cows come home.

[Condi]

hidetheelephants said:

The watermelons are at it again; 'ZOMG atomic mud will engulf Cardiff and cause billions of pounds of improvements!'

I'm surprised they didn't seek a quote from Busby or Large, they can be relied upon to speculate about utter nonsense til the cows come home.

Best thing about the article is the correction at the end....

Guardian said:

This article was amended on 1 October 2018 because an earlier version described the physicist Emeritus Prof Keith Barnham as a physician. This has been corrected.

[rolando]

or Male he's said:

hidetheelephants said:

The watermelons are at it again; 'ZOMG atomic mud will engulf Cardiff and cause billions of pounds of improvements!'

I'm surprised they didn't seek a quote from Busby or Large, they can be relied upon to speculate about utter nonsense til the cows come home.

Best thing about the article is the correction at the end....

Guardian said:

This article was amended on 1 October 2018 because an earlier version described the physicist Emeritus Prof Keith Barnham as a physician. This has been corrected.

If I were Cian Ceiran I wouldn't be getting that close to the atomic mud. In fact, I'd be running a mile. … or maybe he's crouching in that position because he's stting himself.

[WatchfulEye]

hidetheelephants said:

The watermelons are at it again; 'ZOMG atomic mud will engulf Cardiff and cause billions of pounds of improvements!'

I'm surprised they didn't seek a quote from Busby or Large, they can be relied upon to speculate about utter nonsense til the cows come home.

Perhaps Busby is indisposed:
https://news.sky.com/story/dr-chris-busby-police-b...

Anyway, here's the latest PR vid from the Hinkley site. I continue to be amazed at the sheer scale of the works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgMvvfVaQf8

Edited by WatchfulEye on Tuesday 2nd October 23:11

[V8 Fettler]

LoonyTunes said:

Yeah, because the coal industry is doing brilliantly - especially in Trumps heartland..

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=coal+lay+offs&am...

Chinese currently building 250GW of coal-fired http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china...

Article also compares construction costs for coal-fired and unreliables

Article said:

“The surge in new projects will overwhelm China’s own 1100 GW coal cap in the country’s current Five-Year Plan,” the report said, adding that cancelling the 259GW of new coal plants would free up $210bn, enough to build nearly 300GW of solar PV or 175 GW of wind power.

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

LoonyTunes said:

Yeah, because the coal industry is doing brilliantly - especially in Trumps heartland..

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=coal+lay+offs&am...

Chinese currently building 250GW of coal-fired http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china...

Article also compares construction costs for coal-fired and unreliables

Article said:

“The surge in new projects will overwhelm China’s own 1100 GW coal cap in the country’s current Five-Year Plan,” the report said, adding that cancelling the 259GW of new coal plants would free up $210bn, enough to build nearly 300GW of solar PV or 175 GW of wind power.

If you look into it a bit more there is some suspicion that the plants are being built mainly to keep employment and growth going. Quite simply, with the ongoing investment in wind and solar, plus the new nuclear sets, they dont need 250gw of extra coal capacity. It'll be the most marginal thing on the network anyway, and so will only run in occasional situations - its not going be anywhere near base load.


EDIT

Very interesting article about the performance of the Tesla battery in SA. Seems to be working better than expected in providing frequency response and gird stability, as well as being able to 'trade' the market and buy cheap power then sell expensive power.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-defi...

We're already seeing small scale batteries in the UK being used.

Edited by Condi on Wednesday 3rd October 12:26

[turbobloke]

Somebody mentioned coal (again) - here are a couple of news items including...coal. Check them out.

If they haven't been posted before then they're not pearoasts

UK Coal Revival Reverses Gains In Green Power Drive
Date: 28/09/18
Financial Times

China Solar Power Toxic Waste
Date: 17/08/18
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

[Toltec]

Condi said:

EDIT

Very interesting article about the performance of the Tesla battery in SA. Seems to be working better than expected in providing frequency response and gird stability, as well as being able to 'trade' the market and buy cheap power then sell expensive power.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-defi...

We're already seeing small scale batteries in the UK being used.

Edited by Condi on Wednesday 3rd October 12:26

It is an impressive piece of technology, however the 'trade the market' part indicates it is more about profitability than provision of cheaper reliable power to the end consumer. Providing the output price from a battery system is factored into the overall cost of renewable power generation that is fine.

[WatchfulEye]

Condi said:

We're already seeing small scale batteries in the UK being used.

More than just small scale. National Grid alone have contracts for 200 MW of battery services (twice as much as Aus has); 7 suppliers were successful in the tender for battery services, with one of the batteries supplied by Tesla. In this case, NG specifically asked for small batteries, to avoid the need for network upgrades which might have been needed by just installing one or 2 batteries (and also encourage a more competitive tender and avoiding the substantial regulatory complexity of adding a "large" (>50 MW) generator ).

There are also several small batteries installed by distribution network operators - these have a slightly different role. The NG batteries are contracted to provide frequency support services (i.e. to support the grid for 30 minutes in the event of a serious grid imbalance, to permit time to start up longer-term generation plant - OCGT, diesels, reciprocating gas plants, etc.).

In the case of the DNOs, the batteries are to fix short term network constraints by peak shaving. If there is a small demand excess over available import transmission lines, then it may be cheaper to use batteries to shave the peak load, rather than upgrade the import lines (especially if they are underground lines leading to a city centre or other built up area).

[Condi]

Toltec said:

It is an impressive piece of technology, however the 'trade the market' part indicates it is more about profitability than provision of cheaper reliable power to the end consumer. Providing the output price from a battery system is factored into the overall cost of renewable power generation that is fine.

?

You will always have price differences in the market, during the middle of the night power is obviously cheaper than at 7pm when everyone have their lights and ovens on. If it wasnt profitable, then nobody would it. Everything has to make money.

The battery will help balancing the system much cheaper than using diesel or gas peaking units. Effectively, it monitors the frequency and either discharges or charges depending on the deviation from the desired freq. If a unit falls off the network and freq falls, the battery can discharge quickly and restore the freq much faster and more economically than starting a peaker, or turning up a set already on load.

[V8 Fettler]

turbobloke said:

Somebody mentioned coal (again) - here are a couple of news items including...coal. Check them out.

If they haven't been posted before then they're not pearoasts

UK Coal Revival Reverses Gains In Green Power Drive
Date: 28/09/18
Financial Times

China Solar Power Toxic Waste
Date: 17/08/18
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

https://www.ft.com/content/4b302644-bce6-11e8-8274-55b72926558f

Refers to the rise in gas prices during the summer, which explains why coal-fired was running as baseload, although someone posted that this was due to coal-fired using up reserves.



FT article also refers to the fact that the UK only has one week's "buffer" of gas.

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

LoonyTunes said:

Yeah, because the coal industry is doing brilliantly - especially in Trumps heartland..

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=coal+lay+offs&am...

Chinese currently building 250GW of coal-fired http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china...

Article also compares construction costs for coal-fired and unreliables

Article said:

“The surge in new projects will overwhelm China’s own 1100 GW coal cap in the country’s current Five-Year Plan,” the report said, adding that cancelling the 259GW of new coal plants would free up $210bn, enough to build nearly 300GW of solar PV or 175 GW of wind power.

If you look into it a bit more there is some suspicion that the plants are being built mainly to keep employment and growth going. Quite simply, with the ongoing investment in wind and solar, plus the new nuclear sets, they dont need 250gw of extra coal capacity. It'll be the most marginal thing on the network anyway, and so will only run in occasional situations - its not going be anywhere near base load.


EDIT

Very interesting article about the performance of the Tesla battery in SA. Seems to be working better than expected in providing frequency response and gird stability, as well as being able to 'trade' the market and buy cheap power then sell expensive power.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-defi...

We're already seeing small scale batteries in the UK being used.

Edited by Condi on Wednesday 3rd October 12:26

Do you have a link to support your statement?

Batteries cannot meaningfully buy cheap and sell expensive power, capacity is too small.

From your link:



The graph mysteriously ignores energy stored in rotating turbo-generators, perhaps powered by coal, as covered previously on this thread.

[robinessex]

WatchfulEye said:

Anyway, here's the latest PR vid from the Hinkley site. I continue to be amazed at the sheer scale of the works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgMvvfVaQf8

Edited by WatchfulEye on Tuesday 2nd October 23:11

Bailing out a bankrupt French energy company

[Kccv23highliftcam]

V8 Fettler said:

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

LoonyTunes said:

Yeah, because the coal industry is doing brilliantly - especially in Trumps heartland..

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=coal+lay+offs&am...

Chinese currently building 250GW of coal-fired http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china...

Article also compares construction costs for coal-fired and unreliables

Article said:

“The surge in new projects will overwhelm China’s own 1100 GW coal cap in the country’s current Five-Year Plan,” the report said, adding that cancelling the 259GW of new coal plants would free up $210bn, enough to build nearly 300GW of solar PV or 175 GW of wind power.

If you look into it a bit more there is some suspicion that the plants are being built mainly to keep employment and growth going. Quite simply, with the ongoing investment in wind and solar, plus the new nuclear sets, they dont need 250gw of extra coal capacity. It'll be the most marginal thing on the network anyway, and so will only run in occasional situations - its not going be anywhere near base load.


EDIT

Very interesting article about the performance of the Tesla battery in SA. Seems to be working better than expected in providing frequency response and gird stability, as well as being able to 'trade' the market and buy cheap power then sell expensive power.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-defi...

We're already seeing small scale batteries in the UK being used.

Edited by Condi on Wednesday 3rd October 12:26

Do you have a link to support your statement?

Batteries cannot meaningfully buy cheap and sell expensive power, capacity is too small.

From your link:



The graph mysteriously ignores energy stored in rotating turbo-generators, perhaps powered by coal, as covered previously on this thread.

These quoted postings encapsulate the entrenched positions of the associated parties.

The UK should be using the resources the the UK has to provide power for the UK, end off.

No Kyoto treaty, no EU meddling and NO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS.

Power generation should be managed funded and controlled at a national level.

[Gary C]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

These quoted postings encapsulate the entrenched positions of the associated parties.

The UK should be using the resources the the UK has to provide power for the UK, end off.

No Kyoto treaty, no EU meddling and NO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS.

Power generation should be managed funded and controlled at a national level.

It is true that a national generation and supply business was great but there were some downsides.

While the price of electricity was ok, it didn't actually cover the real costs of the industry.

But the real reason they wanted it broken up, the unions were the most powerful in the UK and could have brought the country to its knees in hours, hence the pay and pensions

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

Do you have a link to support your statement?

Batteries cannot meaningfully buy cheap and sell expensive power, capacity is too small.

From your link:

The graph mysteriously ignores energy stored in rotating turbo-generators, perhaps powered by coal, as covered previously on this thread.

Do I have a link to support my statement? No, but the nuclear sets arnt marginal, and the wind and solar generation isnt marginal either. Without any major gas capacity, the only marginal units are the coal sets. Not only that, but China doesnt require all the new capacity which is being built, but the new coal isnt going to displace the nuclear or renewable generation.


Did you actually read the article, or just look at the pictures??

The whole point of the article was that the battery had exceeded all expectations. The diagram you quoted was published before the battery was installed, and when many people said it couldn't be done and were sceptical about the claims. Over the first 6 months of operation it has performed better, and a much lower cost, than the alternatives, and other grid operators in Australia have begun installing batteries in their states too. With full access to all the costs, and performance data, they wouldnt be buying their own if it had no value.

The Tesla battery is a 100MW unit, with 120MWh of storage - a meaningful amount to provide freq response and grid stability. When a thermal station is on freq response it would be unusual for it to deviate by more than 50MW from the desired output. Here in the UK, NG have contracted for 200MW of small batteries (as GaryC said), able to perform the same function as a single larger battery. 200MW is more than enough for peaking and freq response.

As far as the rotational energy in thermal generators, what about it? It exists, but is inherent in the system and so comes at no cost. Thermal units are still put on frequency response by the grid operators and that is a cost to the network. Freq response means the unit it set to a desired output but automatically increases/ decreases output depending on the freq (load) on the system. If a battery can do it cheaper, more efficiently, and more accurately then surely that is better?

Edited by Condi on Thursday 4th October 11:47