The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

Author
Discussion

Jambo85

3,311 posts

87 months

Monday 25th March 2019
quotequote all
Condi said:
Interesting day yesterday.....

Peak demand over the day (midnight to midnight) was actually about 3-4pm in the afternoon (it is usually about 4am), and National Grid seemed to run out of flexible thermal generation to turn down. They turned down Drax biomass units at negative bid prices (ie NG were paying Drax to generate less), and were also turning off wind generation tagged as energy.

We always guessed that one day nuclear, wind, hydro and solar would satisfy demand, and it looks like that happened yesterday. Cashout/Imbalance price was minus £50 for 5 hours through the middle of the day!
Sounds really interesting Condi so I’m trying to reconcile it vs the gridwatch charts. They still show plenty of CCGT output all day, can you tell me what I’m missing?

Also isn’t 4am usually minimum demand rather than peak?

Thanks.

JD

2,769 posts

227 months

Monday 25th March 2019
quotequote all
Jambo85 said:
Sounds really interesting Condi so I’m trying to reconcile it vs the gridwatch charts. They still show plenty of CCGT output all day, can you tell me what I’m missing?

Also isn’t 4am usually minimum demand rather than peak?

Thanks.
https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?start=2019-03-24&&_k=y7v0m3

These graphs are much easier to view as you can see all the data.

phumy

5,671 posts

236 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
Jambo85 said:
Condi said:
Interesting day yesterday.....

Peak demand over the day (midnight to midnight) was actually about 3-4pm in the afternoon (it is usually about 4am), and National Grid seemed to run out of flexible thermal generation to turn down. They turned down Drax biomass units at negative bid prices (ie NG were paying Drax to generate less), and were also turning off wind generation tagged as energy.

We always guessed that one day nuclear, wind, hydro and solar would satisfy demand, and it looks like that happened yesterday. Cashout/Imbalance price was minus £50 for 5 hours through the middle of the day!
Sounds really interesting Condi so I’m trying to reconcile it vs the gridwatch charts. They still show plenty of CCGT output all day, can you tell me what I’m missing?

Also isn’t 4am usually minimum demand rather than peak?

Thanks.
Looks like yesterdays peak was around 20:00 and yes around 04:00 was minimum demand.

phumy

5,671 posts

236 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
WhatHappenedThere said:
I was just hoping to learn from you.

You said you knew.
How was I to know you didn’t mean it?
I didnt mean what?

WhatHappenedThere

268 posts

60 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
phumy said:
WhatHappenedThere said:
I was just hoping to learn from you.

You said you knew.
How was I to know you didn’t mean it?
I didnt mean what?
I could say churlishly, to be rude.

However you, I and the other readers here all know that is not the case.
Do you see the part in bold I highlighted in your post, how you state how you know exactly how the system works.?

The way you vociferously stated you didn’t need to explain this to me or anyone did make it smell that you were talking bks (in your parlance).

However, it seems that there are more learned and polite people than yourself on the thread, so your information on the information you guard preciously, has little value anyway.

Have a good day

Condi

17,088 posts

170 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
Jambo85 said:
Condi said:
Interesting day yesterday.....

Peak demand over the day (midnight to midnight) was actually about 3-4pm in the afternoon (it is usually about 4am), and National Grid seemed to run out of flexible thermal generation to turn down. They turned down Drax biomass units at negative bid prices (ie NG were paying Drax to generate less), and were also turning off wind generation tagged as energy.

We always guessed that one day nuclear, wind, hydro and solar would satisfy demand, and it looks like that happened yesterday. Cashout/Imbalance price was minus £50 for 5 hours through the middle of the day!
Sounds really interesting Condi so I’m trying to reconcile it vs the gridwatch charts. They still show plenty of CCGT output all day, can you tell me what I’m missing?

Also isn’t 4am usually minimum demand rather than peak?

Thanks.
Sorry, a very badly written post.

What I was trying to say was that minimum demand (not peak demand) was in the afternoon, rather than during the night as is usual. So at 2pm transmission demand was only 23.1GW, whereas the lowest demand during the night was 24.1GW at 5am, which is unusual.

While there was gas generation on the system there were multiple stations being held on for system reasons by National Grid, rather than for energy reasons, I dont think any were economically dispatched through the middle of the day. Grid had run out of things they could turn down easily, and so were paying Drax to turn down their biomass units, and were also turning off some wind units for energy, rather than system reasons. This sends market prices, and cashout prices negative, which signals to the market to dump all the flexible generation, as you're effectively paying to generate!


For example, if you look at West Burton 2, Wburb-2, on Sunday, you see it was economically dispatched overnight until 4am, and then was economically dispatched again in the evening, but NG held the station on during the day. The market is saying 'we dont need the generation' but Grid need to keep a certain amount of stations on and available, both for inertia and grid stability, and because once they shut down they're off for 4 or 5 hours before becoming available again.

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=balancing/search...



Edited by Condi on Tuesday 26th March 10:25

Condi

17,088 posts

170 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
JD said:
https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?start=2...

These graphs are much easier to view as you can see all the data.
That website is usually quite good, but their demand out turn doesnt agree at all with Grids published figures. It looks like they're adding some embedded generation into the mix which looks to be messing with the demand out turn.

They have 32-33GW of total demand during the afternoon, whereas Grid's transmission demand figure during the same period is 23-25GW.

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=demand/initialde...


Jambo85

3,311 posts

87 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
JD said:
Jambo85 said:
Sounds really interesting Condi so I’m trying to reconcile it vs the gridwatch charts. They still show plenty of CCGT output all day, can you tell me what I’m missing?

Also isn’t 4am usually minimum demand rather than peak?

Thanks.
https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?start=2019-03-24&&_k=y7v0m3

These graphs are much easier to view as you can see all the data.
Nice, thanks very much. Even more of my daily productivity gone...!

So trying to understand Condi's post again, 24 March, I see the negative pricing which existed for much of the day, say 1100-1700 ish. Looks like it was particularly sunny and windy at the same time. What is the peak demand event Condi mentions at 4pm ish, did you mean to write minimum? Since this is a funny time for low demand do we infer that it is due to behind the meter solar/wind generation?

The CCGT doesn't go below 6 GW though, is this the minimum that we need to keep going for dispatch reasons and/or frequency response?Also the interconnectors remain around the 4 GW level.

Apologies for all the questions, but this fascinates me.

Condi

17,088 posts

170 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
Jambo85 said:
Nice, thanks very much. Even more of my daily productivity gone...!

So trying to understand Condi's post again, 24 March, I see the negative pricing which existed for much of the day, say 1100-1700 ish. Looks like it was particularly sunny and windy at the same time. What is the peak demand event Condi mentions at 4pm ish, did you mean to write minimum? Since this is a funny time for low demand do we infer that it is due to behind the meter solar/wind generation?

The CCGT doesn't go below 6 GW though, is this the minimum that we need to keep going for dispatch reasons and/or frequency response?Also the interconnectors remain around the 4 GW level.

Apologies for all the questions, but this fascinates me.
Sorry, not peak demand, but point of minimum demand.

Windy and sunny, so lots of embedded and behind the meter generation, combined with warm weather and generally low demand. Sunday demands are usually low anyway, but to see daytime demand below night-time demand is unusual.

CCGT supply will have been what Grid thought they needed for system stability reasons. Had they known that demands were going to be quite so low then maybe they could have dropped one or 2, but demand was not forecast to be that low ahead of time and I'm no expert on how NG run their control room or what headroom and flexibility they need from part loaded plant. In order to hold these plants on NG were having to turn down biomass and wind units which is why the cashout price was negative.

IC supply/demand is usually set at day-ahead stage, and they're not the easiest things to re optimise within day. Again, I dont fully understand exactly how they are traded within day (or even if they are), but when the daily auctions ran on Saturday the UK price will have been higher than France/Belgium etc which will have set the energy direction and volume.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
The UK may buck this trend, sadly.

Global Energy Transition Stalled
The year‑on‑year increase of the global average score on the (Green) Energy Transition Index was the lowest of the last five years. Three years after the global milestone of political commitment through the Paris Agreement, this lack of progress provides a reality check (etc). World Economic Forum, 25 March 2019

This brings back memories...if you're old enough to remember but not so old as to forget.


rscott

14,690 posts

190 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
The UK may buck this trend, sadly.

Global Energy Transition Stalled
The year?on?year increase of the global average score on the (Green) Energy Transition Index was the lowest of the last five years. Three years after the global milestone of political commitment through the Paris Agreement, this lack of progress provides a reality check (etc). World Economic Forum, 25 March 2019

This brings back memories...if you're old enough to remember but not so old as to forget.

The full report - http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Fostering_Effecti...

And the Telegraph's summary of it (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/25/uk-eighth-best-placed-large-nation-clean-energy-race/ ) suggests the UK may well be able to buck the trend.
"The UK is the best-placed large country in the race to switch from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources, says the World Economic Forum (WEF).
A study of 115 nations ranked the UK as eighth in its preparedness for the energy transition, and the only G7 nation in the top 10 of the WEF’s index.
However, the UK’s success is being undermined by the largest greenhouse gas emitters – including the US, China, India and Russia – whose progress on energy transition has stalled."

WhatHappenedThere

268 posts

60 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
We were talking about the report in the office earlier.

Your version (Turbobloke) is one take on the report. Which you haven't linked to by the way.


Similar to rscott:

See : https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/global-energy...

"The report’s authors ranked Germany among the top three countries (with India and the UK) for renewable energy policies, and note that “the success of green energy transition” in Germany offers lessons for developing nations. But high retail electricity prices “highlight the complexity of keeping energy prices affordable while investing in energy transition,” the report says. “Recent evidence suggests rising electricity prices are affecting households and small business more than large industrial energy consumers, which affects the equity and inclusiveness in sharing the costs of energy transition,” the report adds."

Or to further fuel the fire : https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/03/world-s-ener...

"
The report’s Energy Transition Index (ETI) measures economies in two ways. Firstly, each economy is assessed for its energy “system performance”. This takes into account three criteria regarded as critical for transitioning to the future, namely: security and access, environmental sustainability and economic growth and development. The latter measures economic impact to households, industry and export revenues.

Over the past five years, the measurement that has seen the most improvement has been energy access and security, followed by economic growth and development and, lastly, environmental sustainability. The average system performance score had been improving since 2014, but it stalled last year as gains in energy security and access were offset by reductions in affordability and sustainability. Continued use of coal for power generation in Asia, increasing commodity prices and slower than needed improvements in energy intensity have contributed to this year’s stagnation in performance."



Doesn't this thread on the subject of Power generation persistently doubt and lambast that first sentence in the second para :


"Over the past five years, the measurement that has seen the most improvement has been energy access and security,"



Jambo85

3,311 posts

87 months

Tuesday 26th March 2019
quotequote all
Condi said:
CCGT supply will have been what Grid thought they needed for system stability reasons. Had they known that demands were going to be quite so low then maybe they could have dropped one or 2, but demand was not forecast to be that low ahead of time and I'm no expert on how NG run their control room or what headroom and flexibility they need from part loaded plant. In order to hold these plants on NG were having to turn down biomass and wind units which is why the cashout price was negative.

IC supply/demand is usually set at day-ahead stage, and they're not the easiest things to re optimise within day. Again, I dont fully understand exactly how they are traded within day (or even if they are), but when the daily auctions ran on Saturday the UK price will have been higher than France/Belgium etc which will have set the energy direction and volume.
Lots of good info, appreciate it.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 27th March 2019
quotequote all
The UK won't stop (yet).

Green Energy, Magical Thinking

Link

PDF

Hydrocarbons - oil, natural gas, and coal - are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries, meanwhile, constitute a small source of energy, and physics dictates that they will remain so. This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing or can undergo a near-term transition to a “new energy economy".
Mark P. Mills, Manhattan Institute, 26 March 2019


Condi

17,088 posts

170 months

Wednesday 27th March 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
The UK won't stop (yet).

Green Energy, Magical Thinking

Hydrocarbons - oil, natural gas, and coal - are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries, meanwhile, constitute a small source of energy, and physics dictates that they will remain so. This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing or can undergo a near-term transition to a “new energy economy".
Mark P. Mills, Manhattan Institute, 26 March 2019
As ever.... follow the money....

Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, where he co-directs an Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation. He is also a strategic partner with Cottonwood Venture Partners (an energy-tech venture fund).

So lets look at the firms he is invested in...

https://www.cottonwoodvp.com/index.html/#portfolio

CottonWood's website said:
Ambyint's proprietary platform leverages the latest innovation in edge computing, wireless communications, predictive data analytics, and artificial intelligence to enable oil and gas producers to autonomously and intelligently optimize production and the well-site.

Novi Labs is the industry leader in advanced machine learning software to help oil and gas companies design wells and optimize development programs to maximize economic performance. Novi's software is used in every major unconventional play in North America.

SitePro provides end-to-end solutions for digitalizing and automating water management and other oil and gas facilities. SitePro’s leading cloud- and edge-based technologies streamline operations and logistics across the full water life cycle for some of the largest oil and gas operators.

Well Data Labs is a modern web application built to give operators the fastest and simplest way to manage, analyze, and report on their internal frac data. Well Data Labs provides a platform that standardizes the delivery of time-series and field-created frac data directly to an operator’s systems in real time.

MineralSoft is the leading provider of cloud-based mineral rights management software to automate and optimize management of small to large portfolios of mineral interests and royalty payments. MineralSoft is used across more than one hundred thousand wells by mineral funds, endowments, family offices, and other mineral owners.



So... not only is the paper about America, and not only is some of the data wrong (eg cost of renewable power vs cost of thermal power, with or without subsidies), but he also has money invested in companies who's profitability is directly connected with the continued use of oil and gas. #

Biased? D'ya think so??

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Wednesday 27th March 2019
quotequote all
Condi said:
As ever.... follow the money....



Biased? D'ya think so??
probably, just like john gummer on the other side of the energy debate. it's a highly politicised topic , very difficult to find anyone involved that doesn't have a conflict of interest, perceived or actual.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 27th March 2019
quotequote all
Condi said:
As ever.... follow the money....



Biased? D'ya think so??
Clearly you have absolutely no idea or you would have provided evidence rather than ask empty questions with multiple question marks for (ho ho ho) added effect.

Entirely as expected.

What aspect of the physics in the report do you disagree with and why?

Google's uber-Green engineers and scientists (see RE<C) reached the same conclusions even after including fantasy technology that doesn't exist, such as self-erecting turbines in robotic wind farms.

Pointing fingers is easy (see below) try addressing the substantive points made for a change.

link said:
A Tory peer is under pressure to resign as chairman of an influential climate change quango after his private company was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by green businesses.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-peer-lord-deben-in-row-over-600-000-green-payments-rndnwj6bz

Condi

17,088 posts

170 months

Wednesday 27th March 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Condi said:
As ever.... follow the money....



Biased? D'ya think so??
Clearly you have absolutely no idea or you would have provided evidence rather than ask empty questions with multiple question marks for (ho ho ho) added effect.

Entirely as expected.

What aspect of the physics in the report do you disagree with and why?

Google's uber-Green engineers and scientists (see RE<C) reached the same conclusions even after including fantasy technology that doesn't exist, such as self-erecting turbines in robotic wind farms.

Pointing fingers is easy (see below) try addressing the substantive points made for a change.

link said:
A Tory peer is under pressure to resign as chairman of an influential climate change quango after his private company was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by green businesses.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-peer-lord-deben-in-row-over-600-000-green-payments-rndnwj6bz
I did provide evidence. I proved that he was invested heavily in O+G related businesses and that the success of those businesses (and its a VC fund, investing their own money), was directly therefore linked to continued use of O+G. He is not an impartial writer.

What physics are there in the report? His argument is mainly economic, which is rendered moot by the fact that UK onshore wind power is cheap enough to build, even in sub-optimal locations, without subsidies. The point of renewable power being cost competitive with thermal power is already here. His conclusions about peak demand going up are also simply wrong - peak demand in the UK has been falling for the last 10 years, and the investments into batteries, intelligent chargers, pumped storage and vehicle to grid systems will mean better utilisation of power to manage the peaks and troughs. And finally, his last argument about continued demand increases is not something being seen in the UK either. As well as peak demand, average demand has been falling as well.



He is obviously entitled to his opinion, but to claim that as fact is not correct, and the evidence from the UK, and how our power system is rapidly evolving simply doesnt back up his conclusions.



EDIT - BP in their recently published Global outlook forecast by 2040 28% of primary energy will come from renewable sources, and that 25% of vehicle miles will be electrically powered.

In their words

BP 2040 Outlook said:
renewables in power are the fastest growing energy source (7.6% p.a.), accounting for around two-thirds of the increase in global power generation, and becoming the single largest source of global power generation by 2040. ...

Both wind and solar power grow rapidly – increasing by a factor of 5 and 10 respectively – accounting for broadly similar increments to global power. This rapid growth is aided by continuing pronounced falls in the costs of wind and solar power as they move down their learning curves.

The EU continues to lead the way in terms of the penetration of renewables, with the share of renewables in the EU power market increasing to over 50% by 2040. The challenge of managing the intermittency issues associated with this scale of renewables penetration increases towards the end of the Outlook.

The growth in renewable energy is dominated by the developing world, with China, India and Other Asia accounting for almost half of the growth in global renewable power generation.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/energy-outlook/demand-by-fuel/renewables.html

EDIT EDIT

Trafigura - one of the largest private trading houses in the world and responsible for billions of barrels of oil sales per year expects peak oil demand to be by 2030, but warns it could be sooner.

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights...



Edited by Condi on Wednesday 27th March 18:46

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 27th March 2019
quotequote all
Condi said:
turbobloke said:
Condi said:
As ever.... follow the money....



Biased? D'ya think so??
Clearly you have absolutely no idea or you would have provided evidence rather than ask empty questions with multiple question marks for (ho ho ho) added effect.

Entirely as expected.

What aspect of the physics in the report do you disagree with and why?

Google's uber-Green engineers and scientists (see RE<C) reached the same conclusions even after including fantasy technology that doesn't exist, such as self-erecting turbines in robotic wind farms.

Pointing fingers is easy (see below) try addressing the substantive points made for a change.

link said:
A Tory peer is under pressure to resign as chairman of an influential climate change quango after his private company was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by green businesses.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-peer-lord-deben-in-row-over-600-000-green-payments-rndnwj6bz
I did provide evidence. I proved that he was invested heavily in O+G related businesses and that the success of those businesses (and its a VC fund, investing their own money), was directly therefore linked to continued use of O+G. He is not an impartial writer.
That's not evidence that the content of the report is wrong. Regardless of source, content needs to be examined to see if any assumption (such as the one you made above) applies. The renewables industry generates masses of prpaganda because there is a clear vested interest. However what is said needs to be examined to establish merits and demerits in each case..

next question said:
What physics are there in the report? His argument is mainly economic.
You read the report, right, so you could answer your own question. It's curious that you didn't do so.

yet another question said:
He is obviously entitled to his opinion, but to claim that as fact is not correct...
As above you're failing to differentiate between evidence and opinion. Of course opinions vary, hence the biased material emitted by the renewables industry and its (self) interest groups from time to time.

Any science they offer as evidence self-evidently isn't offered as opinion and would need to be evaluated as per the report I linked to. Its conclusion is an echo of the uber-Green scientists and engineers at Google slowly and painfully realising that (as advertised and as per the ultimate aim) renewables simply cannot work.

Condi

17,088 posts

170 months

Wednesday 27th March 2019
quotequote all
As has been pointed out to you before, there is a totally different thread for the scientific arguments for and against global warming.


All any business will do is what is economically the most profitable route. At the moment, regardless of the science, renewable generation is getting by far the most investment, and it is doing so because the costs (with/without subsidies as applicable) are competitive with thermal generation. Coal is dead. Gas is going to be with us a long time, but its utilisation will decrease as low carbon power sources supply more of our power. The oil majors are running around trying to diversity their asset bases because they know oil is not going to be as in demand as it is now forever. Every car manufacturer on earth is bringing out hybrids or EV's.


You're looking for a boat which has long since sailed.