The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
StanleyT said:
Daft question.
How long does it take "power" to be sent from one country to another, e.g. as per up the thread send our wind power to Poland to replace coal generation.
Is it atomic speed of light that the power travels down the lines, if so the distances are minuscule and nominal or does it take a bit longer - say 1s / 1000km for a response from generation to grid?
It is small enough that it can be considered negligible, but there are delays, because in an AC system, it is phase angle which determines the flow of power - and this in turn depends on the inertia at each end of the power line.How long does it take "power" to be sent from one country to another, e.g. as per up the thread send our wind power to Poland to replace coal generation.
Is it atomic speed of light that the power travels down the lines, if so the distances are minuscule and nominal or does it take a bit longer - say 1s / 1000km for a response from generation to grid?
In effect, in an AC system, each end of the power line acts like a train car, and the power line itself acts like a stiff spring. It has a bit of give in it, and each train car has it's own inertia.
In practice, power can be steered down one power line or other, or even having the power flow on a particular line reversed, by deliberately introducing phase shifts by switching on devices such as capacitors or inductors (usually called reactors in the power industry), by using special transformers which can generate a variable phase shift (called quadrature boosters in the UK), by altering the excitation on power plant generators, by using a synchronous compensator (essentially a grid scale generator just with a flywheel instead of an engine) or increasingly by using electronic devices called static compensators. This means in practice, if power starts to flow one way, the control systems will act to ensure that the flows remain within planned limits - usually, these plans will include contingency in case of one country requiring a sudden injection of power.
For example, the new EPR nuclear plant in Finland is such a large generator and such a large proportion of the Finnish grid, that the Finnish grid operator has had to arrange contingencies with the neighbouring countries that in the event of a plant trip, that the other countries will allow their grid reserve systems to transmit power across the border.
In practice, to transmit power across water, you would need to use DC - in this case, the power transfer is electronically controlled, rather than being moved passively. There are limitations depending on the technology (both the electronic and cable technology). Historically, DC technology has relied on current source converter (CSC) technology. This is a very well established technology and is efficient and reliable. However, it has the disadvantage of placing high stress on the cable and this limits the rate of change of power flow. A constant DC current flows in the cable, and therefore changing power flow requires changing voltage, and reversing current flow requires reversing voltage. Due to electrons leaking through the cable insulation, and a phenomenon called space charge, the electrical insulation gradually becomes charged by the DC voltage. If the DC polarity is suddenly reversed, then the presence of the space charge may result in the insulation being overloaded and becoming damaged. Plastic insulation is not reliable in this situation as in the event of a local arc due to insulation overload, the insulation will be permanently damaged, and the cable will have to be repaired. Typically, only oil/paper insulation can be used - as in the event of an arc, the bitumen can melt and flow into the defect, giving a self-healing effect. These cables are rarely used these days for any other purpose, and can be difficult to source, and the oil fill is environmentally undesirable.
A more modern approach is to use voltage source converter (VSC) technology. This technology operates at constant voltage, so plastic insulation can be used, which makes it much easier to source cables, because plastic insulation is widely used for underground cables. The disadvantage is that the electronics are more expensive and less efficient. However, the electronics are far more flexible and have much finer control than is possible with CSC, as well as being much more grid friendly (for example, electronic static compensation is an inherent feature; see above). The lower cost of the cables, and the far better controlability and grid friendliness of the VSC technology, makes this the preferred technology for new build DC power lines. If theory, such VSC systems could be configured to have response times to power demands in milliseconds, although electricity trading markets are not so advanced as to trade power and reserve on such small time scales, so this remains an academic exercise.
WhatHappenedThere said:
Over and above the Sector deal announced last month of a 30GW pipeline of Offshore wind, UK Gov just announced 75GW offshore wind by 2050.
Some of that offshore wind will be connected to the European grids as well. So the idea is to have a transformer station in the North Sea connected to a few different wind farms, with links to the UK, Belgium and Norway. That way the energy can be used most efficiently and where prices are highest. There is no way the UK on its own can use that much power even on average days. The load factor of offshore wind is pretty impressive. LoonyTunes said:
There hasn't been much nay-saying in here recently, has anybody died? 
What a cheerful chap you are!Nothing of note has been resolved, so there's not much to chat about.
Finland's EPR has been given the good to go sign off.
http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-EPR...
I suspect that you're not terribly interested in that though..
Condi said:
WhatHappenedThere said:
Over and above the Sector deal announced last month of a 30GW pipeline of Offshore wind, UK Gov just announced 75GW offshore wind by 2050.
Some of that offshore wind will be connected to the European grids as well. So the idea is to have a transformer station in the North Sea connected to a few different wind farms, with links to the UK, Belgium and Norway. That way the energy can be used most efficiently and where prices are highest. There is no way the UK on its own can use that much power even on average days. The load factor of offshore wind is pretty impressive. The current transformers just sit on legs above the water. And you're right, it'll be several or more likely many lines running from several transformers. The terminology being used is an 'island'.
Will almost certianly be a high voltage DC link, and it makes little sense to have transformers in each turbine. The main lines will have to feed into the transmission networks rather than distribution - no DNO wants a 5GW line running into their network, the system simply isnt designed like that.
Will almost certianly be a high voltage DC link, and it makes little sense to have transformers in each turbine. The main lines will have to feed into the transmission networks rather than distribution - no DNO wants a 5GW line running into their network, the system simply isnt designed like that.
Edited by Condi on Thursday 2nd May 16:51
Presuming we're all renewable by 20xx how would we best generate heating/ hot water?
Even if we could stick solar panels on flats, which would house most people in England in a few years, which we can't, they'd not be able to generate heat. Using electricity, however cleanly it's generated for heating and water is not efficient in its current form. We are talking about banning gas, but have we even built anywhere with halogen heating etc?
Even if we could stick solar panels on flats, which would house most people in England in a few years, which we can't, they'd not be able to generate heat. Using electricity, however cleanly it's generated for heating and water is not efficient in its current form. We are talking about banning gas, but have we even built anywhere with halogen heating etc?
R Mutt said:
Presuming we're all renewable by 20xx how would we best generate heating/ hot water?
Even if we could stick solar panels on flats, which would house most people in England in a few years, which we can't, they'd not be able to generate heat. Using electricity, however cleanly it's generated for heating and water is not efficient in its current form. We are talking about banning gas, but have we even built anywhere with halogen heating etc?
Properly designed and constructed houses and flats need little or no heat. So only hot water load, cooking, lighting, fridges etc. Even if we could stick solar panels on flats, which would house most people in England in a few years, which we can't, they'd not be able to generate heat. Using electricity, however cleanly it's generated for heating and water is not efficient in its current form. We are talking about banning gas, but have we even built anywhere with halogen heating etc?
R Mutt said:
Presuming we're all renewable by 20xx how would we best generate heating/ hot water?
Even if we could stick solar panels on flats, which would house most people in England in a few years, which we can't, they'd not be able to generate heat. Using electricity, however cleanly it's generated for heating and water is not efficient in its current form. We are talking about banning gas, but have we even built anywhere with halogen heating etc?
I would say the issue with using solar PV for heating is more to do with seasonality than anything else i.e. it produces most energy when you need hardly any space/water heating in the height of summer, and next to bugger all in the dead of winter when you need the most. No practical amount of batteries will address that.Even if we could stick solar panels on flats, which would house most people in England in a few years, which we can't, they'd not be able to generate heat. Using electricity, however cleanly it's generated for heating and water is not efficient in its current form. We are talking about banning gas, but have we even built anywhere with halogen heating etc?
I don't understand what is inherently inefficient about heating space and water with electricity? Yes it's more expensive than using gas directly but that's more to do with the inefficiencies of generating and transmission than anything else surely?
Jambo85 said:
Yes it's more expensive than using gas directly but that's more to do with the inefficiencies of generating and transmission than anything else surely?
For how long though ? article said:
It’s the moment the global sustainable energy market has been waiting for. Battery technology, the essential element in ensuring continuity of supply from weather-dependent sources such as wind and solar, has suddenly become cost competitive.
For lithium-ion batteries, the 'levelized cost of electricity' (LCOE) - the total cost of building and operating an electricity-generating plant - has fallen by 35% since the first half of 2018, analysis by research company BloombergNEF (BNEF) shows.
At the same time, the LCOE for offshore wind has dropped by 24%. Onshore wind and solar's benchmark costs fell 10% and 18% respectively from last year.
“Looking back over this decade, there have been staggering improvements in the cost-competitiveness of these low-carbon options, thanks to technology innovation, economies of scale, stiff price competition and manufacturing experience,” says Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF.
“The low prices promised by offshore wind tenders throughout Europe are now materializing, with several high-profile projects reaching financial close in recent months," says Giannakopoulou. "Its cost decline in the last six months is the sharpest we have seen for any technology.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-how-much-renewable-energy-prices-have-fallen/For lithium-ion batteries, the 'levelized cost of electricity' (LCOE) - the total cost of building and operating an electricity-generating plant - has fallen by 35% since the first half of 2018, analysis by research company BloombergNEF (BNEF) shows.
At the same time, the LCOE for offshore wind has dropped by 24%. Onshore wind and solar's benchmark costs fell 10% and 18% respectively from last year.
“Looking back over this decade, there have been staggering improvements in the cost-competitiveness of these low-carbon options, thanks to technology innovation, economies of scale, stiff price competition and manufacturing experience,” says Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF.
“The low prices promised by offshore wind tenders throughout Europe are now materializing, with several high-profile projects reaching financial close in recent months," says Giannakopoulou. "Its cost decline in the last six months is the sharpest we have seen for any technology.”
WhatHappenedThere said:
Jambo85 said:
Yes it's more expensive than using gas directly but that's more to do with the inefficiencies of generating and transmission than anything else surely?
For how long though ? WhatHappenedThere said:
article said:
It’s the moment the global sustainable energy market has been waiting for. Battery technology, the essential element in ensuring continuity of supply from weather-dependent sources such as wind and solar, has suddenly become cost competitive.
For lithium-ion batteries, the 'levelized cost of electricity' (LCOE) - the total cost of building and operating an electricity-generating plant - has fallen by 35% since the first half of 2018, analysis by research company BloombergNEF (BNEF) shows.
At the same time, the LCOE for offshore wind has dropped by 24%. Onshore wind and solar's benchmark costs fell 10% and 18% respectively from last year.
“Looking back over this decade, there have been staggering improvements in the cost-competitiveness of these low-carbon options, thanks to technology innovation, economies of scale, stiff price competition and manufacturing experience,” says Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF.
“The low prices promised by offshore wind tenders throughout Europe are now materializing, with several high-profile projects reaching financial close in recent months," says Giannakopoulou. "Its cost decline in the last six months is the sharpest we have seen for any technology.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-how-much-renewable-energy-prices-have-fallen/For lithium-ion batteries, the 'levelized cost of electricity' (LCOE) - the total cost of building and operating an electricity-generating plant - has fallen by 35% since the first half of 2018, analysis by research company BloombergNEF (BNEF) shows.
At the same time, the LCOE for offshore wind has dropped by 24%. Onshore wind and solar's benchmark costs fell 10% and 18% respectively from last year.
“Looking back over this decade, there have been staggering improvements in the cost-competitiveness of these low-carbon options, thanks to technology innovation, economies of scale, stiff price competition and manufacturing experience,” says Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF.
“The low prices promised by offshore wind tenders throughout Europe are now materializing, with several high-profile projects reaching financial close in recent months," says Giannakopoulou. "Its cost decline in the last six months is the sharpest we have seen for any technology.”
Jambo already said:
The rate at which battery prices are dropping is impressive certainly, but $187/MWh seems still quite a bit short of viable to me. The Drax site (https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?&_k=zfxe8p) shared by someone earlier shows that the price paid in the UK at least is rarely above $100/MWh.
Furthermore, it isn't clear from the article but I expect that battery cost is additional to the cost of the energy which has to go into the battery in the first place, so wind energy at $100/MWh into a battery at $187/MWh needs to be sold at $287/MWh before it can be called viable, AIUI.
Furthermore, it isn't clear from the article but I expect that battery cost is additional to the cost of the energy which has to go into the battery in the first place, so wind energy at $100/MWh into a battery at $187/MWh needs to be sold at $287/MWh before it can be called viable, AIUI.
WhatHappenedThere said:
article said:
It’s the moment the global sustainable energy market has been waiting for. Battery technology, the essential element in ensuring continuity of supply from weather-dependent sources such as wind and solar, has suddenly become cost competitive.
For lithium-ion batteries, the 'levelized cost of electricity' (LCOE) - the total cost of building and operating an electricity-generating plant - has fallen by 35% since the first half of 2018, analysis by research company BloombergNEF (BNEF) shows.
At the same time, the LCOE for offshore wind has dropped by 24%. Onshore wind and solar's benchmark costs fell 10% and 18% respectively from last year.
“Looking back over this decade, there have been staggering improvements in the cost-competitiveness of these low-carbon options, thanks to technology innovation, economies of scale, stiff price competition and manufacturing experience,” says Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF.
“The low prices promised by offshore wind tenders throughout Europe are now materializing, with several high-profile projects reaching financial close in recent months," says Giannakopoulou. "Its cost decline in the last six months is the sharpest we have seen for any technology.”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-how-much-renewable-energy-prices-have-fallen/For lithium-ion batteries, the 'levelized cost of electricity' (LCOE) - the total cost of building and operating an electricity-generating plant - has fallen by 35% since the first half of 2018, analysis by research company BloombergNEF (BNEF) shows.
At the same time, the LCOE for offshore wind has dropped by 24%. Onshore wind and solar's benchmark costs fell 10% and 18% respectively from last year.
“Looking back over this decade, there have been staggering improvements in the cost-competitiveness of these low-carbon options, thanks to technology innovation, economies of scale, stiff price competition and manufacturing experience,” says Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF.
“The low prices promised by offshore wind tenders throughout Europe are now materializing, with several high-profile projects reaching financial close in recent months," says Giannakopoulou. "Its cost decline in the last six months is the sharpest we have seen for any technology.”
Maybe, in the short term, the onus should be put on the renewable generators to deliver parcels of xGW per hour, every hour, 365 days and it's up to them how they meet it, whether that's by direct generation or feeding in from storage. It would also put the cost on the generator, level the playing field a bit vs gas and possibly remove the need for the capacity market payments.
No doubt this is all a rubbish idea though.
I'm not sure anyone, anywhere is talking about a 100% renewable grid, except those who repeatedly claim it won't work. In the short to medium term it won't work, the industry knows it won't work and the government knows it won't work.
That said, batteries and storage will become more important and more economic as the differences between high and low prices get larger.
That said, batteries and storage will become more important and more economic as the differences between high and low prices get larger.
Condi said:
I'm not sure anyone, anywhere is talking about a 100% renewable grid, except those who repeatedly claim it won't work. In the short to medium term it won't work, the industry knows it won't work and the government knows it won't work.
That said, batteries and storage will become more important and more economic as the differences between high and low prices get larger.
Yep batteries have come on leaps and bounds but at what cost? It's only a matter of time that the resources to make them become scarce and the Green Blob insist they should be banned.That said, batteries and storage will become more important and more economic as the differences between high and low prices get larger.
Batteries and storage worsen already dire EROEI for pv and wind; while there are still relatively few white elephants nobody will notice. While there are still fossil fuel power stations, and nukes, few will notice unavoidable intermittency. So it "works".
Governments can pay people to dig holes and pay others to fill the holes in. That will "work" while the policy persists and the money lasts, but why entertain costly and pointless silliness in any policy area...
Fortunately there's still room for reason in some countries as reflected by the GWPF headline 'Germany, Italy, Hungary & Poland Reject Net-Zero Climate Target'. That's down to politicians in Germany, Italy, Hungary & Poland, not the GWPF.
Governments can pay people to dig holes and pay others to fill the holes in. That will "work" while the policy persists and the money lasts, but why entertain costly and pointless silliness in any policy area...
Fortunately there's still room for reason in some countries as reflected by the GWPF headline 'Germany, Italy, Hungary & Poland Reject Net-Zero Climate Target'. That's down to politicians in Germany, Italy, Hungary & Poland, not the GWPF.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff