The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

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

Compared to coal, nuclear is marginal on construction costs and decommissioning costs.

Compared to coal, wind is marginal on construction costs and is dire on reliability and robustness.

You've stated that the rotational energy stored in steam powered turbo-generators can be used to stabilise frequency, you've also stated that this is at no cost. You've then stated that a battery can do it cheaper, how does that work? Historically, a well-designed grid could rely on the rotational energy stored in steam powered turbo-generators to maintain frequency in the short term without requiring batteries. The increase in wind power and reduction in the number of steam powered turbo-generators has created unstable conditions where batteries are now an option.

You've stated that 200MW is sufficient for peak control. Dinorwig is used for peak control, it's rated at approx 1700MW. Are you sure that 200MW is sufficient?

Are we agreed that batteries cannot meaningfully be used to store bulk quantities of electricity when electricity is cheap, the electricity to be sold when electricity is expensive?

Edited by V8 Fettler on Friday 5th October 07:02

[rolando]

Shame the government has lost the will to support this technology. Anything to do with the green blob?

[Gary C]

Condi said:

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

Actually, coal stations used to sit with a very small droop with reheat pressure control, rather than 'frequency control. The governor action would then respond to frequency and the stored energy in the boiler would ride out short term demand changes to allow the real dispatched response to a loss of generation.

We cannot rely solely on wind and battery (unless we build an inconceivably large amount of batteries) and I/c's wont work as periods of low wind tend to affect near Europe too, so we will have to have a mix, and we have a shortfall looming !

[PRTVR]

France new nuclear power plant delayed, along with more problems found with their existing ones, it looks like depending on the French interconnections may be problematic, unless they do what they did last winter, take cheeper coal produced electricity from Germany and sell it to us as nuclear ie low CO2.

http://m.en.rfi.fr/france/20180725-new-setbacks-fr...

Don't hold out much chance for our French built power stations of the same type.

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

Compared to coal, nuclear is marginal on construction costs and decommissioning costs.

Compared to coal, wind is marginal on construction costs and is dire on reliability and robustness.

You've stated that the rotational energy stored in steam powered turbo-generators can be used to stabilise frequency, you've also stated that this is at no cost. You've then stated that a battery can do it cheaper, how does that work? Historically, a well-designed grid could rely on the rotational energy stored in steam powered turbo-generators to maintain frequency in the short term without requiring batteries. The increase in wind power and reduction in the number of steam powered turbo-generators has created unstable conditions where batteries are now an option.

You've stated that 200MW is sufficient for peak control. Dinorwig is used for peak control, it's rated at approx 1700MW. Are you sure that 200MW is sufficient?

Are we agreed that batteries cannot meaningfully be used to store bulk quantities of electricity when electricity is cheap, the electricity to be sold when electricity is expensive?

Wind and nuclear programs are well advanced, and with subsidies then coal is the most marginal unit.

You're wrong on how much freq control can be obtained within a rotating shaft. The vast majority of our power (75-80%) still comes from thermal generation, and if anything with gas turbines as well as steam turbines on CCGT's we probably have more rotational mass than you might think. Thermal stations are still contracted to provide a degree of flexibility in load to provide more freq response, which typically involves loading/deloading by 30-50mw as freq changes. A battery can do that faster and with a greater degree of control.

Define peak control? For unexpected or absolute peaks NG call on a range of small (10-20mw) gas and diesel generators, which come on for maybe 10-15 mins and then de-load. Large battery technology is cheaper and quicker, but pumped hydro will always have its place as the best store of a large amount of energy.



Gary - I totally agree, it will always be a mix of generation types. Its just fun arguing with someone who thinks they know far more than they actually do.

[V8 Fettler]

Gary C said:

Condi said:

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

Actually, coal stations used to sit with a very small droop with reheat pressure control, rather than 'frequency control. The governor action would then respond to frequency and the stored energy in the boiler would ride out short term demand changes to allow the real dispatched response to a loss of generation.

We cannot rely solely on wind and battery (unless we build an inconceivably large amount of batteries) and I/c's wont work as periods of low wind tend to affect near Europe too, so we will have to have a mix, and we have a shortfall looming !

Governors aren't quick enough



1 = inertial response
2 = governor response

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

Compared to coal, nuclear is marginal on construction costs and decommissioning costs.

Compared to coal, wind is marginal on construction costs and is dire on reliability and robustness.

You've stated that the rotational energy stored in steam powered turbo-generators can be used to stabilise frequency, you've also stated that this is at no cost. You've then stated that a battery can do it cheaper, how does that work? Historically, a well-designed grid could rely on the rotational energy stored in steam powered turbo-generators to maintain frequency in the short term without requiring batteries. The increase in wind power and reduction in the number of steam powered turbo-generators has created unstable conditions where batteries are now an option.

You've stated that 200MW is sufficient for peak control. Dinorwig is used for peak control, it's rated at approx 1700MW. Are you sure that 200MW is sufficient?

Are we agreed that batteries cannot meaningfully be used to store bulk quantities of electricity when electricity is cheap, the electricity to be sold when electricity is expensive?

Wind and nuclear programs are well advanced, and with subsidies then coal is the most marginal unit.

You're wrong on how much freq control can be obtained within a rotating shaft. The vast majority of our power (75-80%) still comes from thermal generation, and if anything with gas turbines as well as steam turbines on CCGT's we probably have more rotational mass than you might think. Thermal stations are still contracted to provide a degree of flexibility in load to provide more freq response, which typically involves loading/deloading by 30-50mw as freq changes. A battery can do that faster and with a greater degree of control.

Define peak control? For unexpected or absolute peaks NG call on a range of small (10-20mw) gas and diesel generators, which come on for maybe 10-15 mins and then de-load. Large battery technology is cheaper and quicker, but pumped hydro will always have its place as the best store of a large amount of energy.



Gary - I totally agree, it will always be a mix of generation types. Its just fun arguing with someone who thinks they know far more than they actually do.

For relative construction costs for wind and coal, see http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china...

Global Construction Review 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.

1GW coal construction cost = $0.8bn, 1 GW wind construction cost = $1.2bn

How much thermal generation is there in South Australia, where the Tesla battery is?

Increased use of wind generation has increased the risk of grid destabilisation in the UK, as has the loss of baseload thermal generation.

The inertial response is effectively instantaneous, how fast is the battery response?

Define a peak in demand? Kettles after a televised football match or similar, anything up to 3000MW. What size is that Tesla battery again?

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

Governors aren't quick enough



1 = inertial response
2 = governor response

Quick enough fr what ?

Yes, inertia is inherent, not disagreeing, but free governor action is virtually instant too, not 'frequency control' where the governor set point is increased, but the inner loop.

The gov is proportional only, and acts as a speed controller before sync and a load controller once synced, sets running at 4% droop with have 100% governor action for a 4% speed change and this is virtually instant, much less than 1s.

Just watch a governor valve during operation, I can tell lies you, it doesn't take 10s to move

Thing is, it's not really the rotating mass, it's the stored energy in the system.

Now , we run at 25% droop to avoid as much as is practical, the frequency from affecting out output. We do have to run up at 4% to give some semblance of control, but it's ramped out to 25 once synced.

Now, as we also have turbines originally designed for a coal station, we also have a function we never use called reheat pressure control. This would allow throttling of the ip gov valves to raise the pressure in the reheater which is then used during a transient, but our reheaters are quite small and it reduces output, so we run with this feature disengaged (and the new operators don't even know what it is)

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th October 12:12

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th October 12:15

[V8 Fettler]

Gary C said:

V8 Fettler said:

Governors aren't quick enough



1 = inertial response
2 = governor response

Quick enough fr what ?

Yes, inertia is inherent, not disagreeing, but free governor action is virtually instant too, not 'frequency control' where the governor set point is increased, but the inner loop.

The gov is proportional only, and acts as a speed controller before sync and a load controller once synced, sets running at 4% droop with have 100% governor action for a 4% speed change and this is virtually instant, much less than 1s.

Just watch a governor valve during operation, I can tell lies you, it doesn't take 10s to move

Thing is, it's not really the rotating mass, it's the stored energy in the system.

Now , we run at 25% droop to avoid as much as is practical, the frequency from affecting out output. We do have to run up at 4% to give some semblance of control, but it's ramped out to 25 once synced.

Now, as we also have turbines originally designed for a coal station, we also have a function we never use called reheat pressure control. This would allow throttling of the ip gov valves to raise the pressure in the reheater which is then used during a transient, but our reheaters are quite small and it reduces output, so we run with this feature disengaged (and the new operators don't even know what it is)

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th October 12:12

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th October 12:15

Quick enough to prevent a catastrophic drop in frequency. Was this not covered previously in this thread?

Best I can find at short notice is a PDF: https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/med...

Have a read from page 16, starting "> Rotor swings in the generators (Inertia response) <"

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Seems an appropriate place for this article, relating to wind farm energy density.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/lar...

[DocJock]

Thanks QT. Interesting article.

[turbobloke]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Seems an appropriate place for this article, relating to wind farm energy density.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/lar...

DocJock said:

Thanks QT. Interesting article.

Agreed, and it's not necessary to go too far into the article to find replication of the Vautard et al and Keith et al results as detailed in the peer-reviewed papers which I cited recently, one concerning large windfarm proliferation resulting in local warming (already measured) and the other, at decarbonisation levels, resulting in global warming (modelled). This is hardly surprising consideting the author team in the article linked to by QT which happens to include Prof David Keith.

Link said:

In two papers — published today in the journals Environmental Research Letters and Joule — Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.

At the time of what was in total the second or third citation of Vautard et al and Keith et al, there was vexation in some ranks not to mention comprehension difficulties and lack of irony appreciation. Hopefully these latest two papers will help to widen perspectives. Particularly with content as below.

Link also said:

“For wind, we found that the average power density — meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant — was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts,” said Miller, who is the first author of both papers.

The observation-based wind power densities are also much lower than important estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Taking the focus out from purely short-term considerations to include longer-term aspects of energy and climate will also be helpful in possibly unintended ways, but not as helpful as having more geology and astronomy in the curriculum which is also taught well in schools.

[rscott]

Interesting to read this quote from the Harvard link :-

“Wind beats coal by any environmental measure, but that doesn’t mean that its impacts are negligible,” said David Keith, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and senior author of the papers.

[turbobloke]

On 28th September I said:

Indeed.

Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.

Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.

Then see this thread one day later 29th Sept for fallout in the shape of evidence-free vexation at Keith et al and Vautard et al citations with the usual ad hom and metoo backslapping.

Condi said:

gadgetmac said:

rscott said:

A standard turbowaffle response. Demanding a far higher level of proof than he provides.

Did you even read Gary C's comment?

I can’t believe you even argue with him, even somebody in the wind generation industry walked away from this thread shaking their head in disbelief.

Most people with any involvement in the power generation industry have found this thread frustrating to the point of walking away, shaking their head. Or in Turbowaffle language, I 'flounced out' because having a sensible argument was less enjoyable than banging my head against the wall.

On the one hand, they disregard all the science around global warming and CO2 emissions. But on the other hand they come up with dubious scientific papers supporting their arguments and demand fully referenced scholarly articles from anyone else challenging them.

Its quite funny though; these angry little men, stuck in the past and unable to do anything about it other than post on t'internet.

"A standard turbowaffle response"

"I can't believe you even argue with him"

"Most people with any involvement in the power generation industry have found this thread frustrating to the point of walking away, shaking their head"

Are any of you people leading energy experts? If so were you involved in the over-egging identified above in erroneous "estimates by leading energy experts"?

What's your take on the latest Harvard research (Condi / rscott / gadgetmac) not least in view of the baseless derogatory remarks from some of you as above?

Industry experts with shaking heads or stationary heads don't emerge well from this latest research, though the ramshackle and amateurish IPCC getting something wrong is hardly news.

If any of you can manage any on-topic responses, no waffle please - the irony would be too great. Credible evidence in peer-reviewed science will do nicely. TIA.

[With This Staff]

Personally, I do not have an objection to wind (particularly offshore) if it can be made to work (which has been discussed to death here).

However, I would not shut coal down until wind does work, nor would I be rushing to such extensive deployment either (yet)

Politicians do appear capable of making a complete hash of this and risk jeopardising the energy security of the UK. The electorate should be having strong words with them imho.

[turbobloke]

Politicians aren't all stupid - a PPE (Oxon) is worthy but doesn't help, and they don't know or don't want to know who to listen to. English Lit (Cantab) hasn't done 'us' any better.

Does intermittency 'work' when wind with storage other than hydro takes a lousy EROEI below the bar? Just asking.

[With This Staff]

Injunction sought to halt start of fracking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-4...

On the grounds of lack of clear and robust plan to evacuate residents in the case of earthquake caused by fracking.

Looks like fracking will be going ahead!

[PRTVR]

With This Staff said:

Personally, I do not have an objection to wind (particularly offshore) if it can be made to work (which has been discussed to death here).

However, I would not shut coal down until wind does work, nor would I be rushing to such extensive deployment either (yet)

Politicians do appear capable of making a complete hash of this and risk jeopardising the energy security of the UK. The electorate should be having strong words with them imho.

This is the big thing for me, the rush to shut down our coal stations before we have a working alternative, as if our few stations make any difference to the global output of CO2, this especially when we needed them last winter and no new technology has come along to mitigate the loss, just wait till our good friends the Russians cut the supply of gas to Europe during a cold spell, things will get interesting very fast.

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

Quick enough to prevent a catastrophic drop in frequency. Was this not covered previously in this thread?

Best I can find at short notice is a PDF: https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/med...

Have a read from page 16, starting "> Rotor swings in the generators (Inertia response) <"

Not disagreeing, just pointing out the rotating inertia is small compare to the stored energy in a big boiler and the droop operates well within 1s, not the 10s in that graph. The governor inner loop (Iie, the bit that measures speed against the governor set-point and controls the governor valves) is very fast.

However, iniertia is significant in smoothing out things, and at Chernobyl, they were actually testing the ability of coast down generation To power the backup cooling.

Interestingly, the link you referred to was about the inertia in wind turbines.

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th October 17:58

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th October 18:02

[With This Staff]

PRTVR said:

France new nuclear power plant delayed, along with more problems found with their existing ones, it looks like depending on the French interconnections may be problematic, unless they do what they did last winter, take cheeper coal produced electricity from Germany and sell it to us as nuclear ie low CO2.

http://m.en.rfi.fr/france/20180725-new-setbacks-fr...

Don't hold out much chance for our French built power stations of the same type.

Taishan 1 appears to coming along - not totally convinced that EPR was the best choice given that this cannot fail.

https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/news-releas...

Happy to be corrected - there are one or two here who can!