The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Evanivitch]

LongQ said:

Those they currently have have been charging a fixed fee for connection. €8 no matter how much energy is consumed. Good value if you go from empty to full. not so good if you need a quick top up. Diabolically expensive if there is a glitch and the charger to car connection drops after a very short period.

They are about to move to a price per kWh (as I understand it) rate.

The public rate is current set at €.79 per kWh. That seems to be about the same cost of fuel per Km as an ICE vehicle although, as we know, the ICE vehicles are paying a lot of tax or various sorts in that number.

Ionity are setting up sites at major trunk roads, they are targeting travellers that want the very fastest charge, and that is what they are offering. Unlike many of open networks (ecotricity aside) which setup in supermarkets, gyms and urban car parks. Therefore, they are able to charge a premium that I think business and premium travellers will be willing to pay on occasion.

Also, let's not forget that this is largely funded by the manufacturers. Who knows what Tesla would charge for public, non-Tesla access. They are trying to control one aspect of their user experience and are offering discounts for their brands.

[Condi]

Not sure if it was mentioned the other week, but Germany agreed a deal to close down its coal stations by 2038, involving €4bn of subsidies to the likes of RWE and Uniper. Total cost for the plan, including compensation to different groups and investment in areas where the mines and power stations currently exist, is upwards of €40bn.

Germany hopes to be powered by 65% renewable energy by 2030.

https://www.ft.com/content/0e26b798-3848-11ea-a6d3...

[LongQ]

Evanivitch said:

LongQ said:

Those they currently have have been charging a fixed fee for connection. €8 no matter how much energy is consumed. Good value if you go from empty to full. not so good if you need a quick top up. Diabolically expensive if there is a glitch and the charger to car connection drops after a very short period.

They are about to move to a price per kWh (as I understand it) rate.

The public rate is current set at €.79 per kWh. That seems to be about the same cost of fuel per Km as an ICE vehicle although, as we know, the ICE vehicles are paying a lot of tax or various sorts in that number.

Ionity are setting up sites at major trunk roads, they are targeting travellers that want the very fastest charge, and that is what they are offering. Unlike many of open networks (ecotricity aside) which setup in supermarkets, gyms and urban car parks. Therefore, they are able to charge a premium that I think business and premium travellers will be willing to pay on occasion.

Also, let's not forget that this is largely funded by the manufacturers. Who knows what Tesla would charge for public, non-Tesla access. They are trying to control one aspect of their user experience and are offering discounts for their brands.

So how will the economy enjoy these low cost energy prices once cost per mile billing has been added as a replacement for fuel duties, etc.

Taking that a stage further, since electric vehicles tend to be somewhat heavier than ICE equivalents and our road manufacturing and maintenance systems seem already to suffer more damage than used to be the case from traffic levels and heavier vehicles - how much tax per electric mile will be required to maintain the network?

Someone much have an estimate or that in order to look at the long terms usage trends. Those trends, in turn, will have potential to affect demand planning on the generation industry. (Possibly more in terms of up front infrastructure costs than annual energy consumption in the early years.)

[Evanivitch]

LongQ said:

Taking that a stage further, since electric vehicles tend to be somewhat heavier than ICE equivalents and our road manufacturing and maintenance systems seem already to suffer more damage than used to be the case from traffic levels and heavier vehicles - how much tax per electric mile will be required to maintain the network?

Firstly, let's not forget that currently UK VED and fuel taxation are punitive measures and do not directly fund the road network. Infact, only about 30% of UK tax revenue from motoring is subsequently spent of the road network.

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road-user-taxat...

Also, let's not forget that EV motoring is already taxed, with 5% VAT at residential property, and 20% at commercial properties.

Local councils (which are responsible for non-motorway maintenance) are now able to install and profit from their own EV charging networks if they wish. This can be used for any purpose, but could go directly back into EV and traditional infrastructure if needed.

[LongQ]

Evanivitch said:

LongQ said:

Taking that a stage further, since electric vehicles tend to be somewhat heavier than ICE equivalents and our road manufacturing and maintenance systems seem already to suffer more damage than used to be the case from traffic levels and heavier vehicles - how much tax per electric mile will be required to maintain the network?

Firstly, let's not forget that currently UK VED and fuel taxation are punitive measures and do not directly fund the road network. Infact, only about 30% of UK tax revenue from motoring is subsequently spent of the road network.

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road-user-taxat...

Also, let's not forget that EV motoring is already taxed, with 5% VAT at residential property, and 20% at commercial properties.

Local councils (which are responsible for non-motorway maintenance) are now able to install and profit from their own EV charging networks if they wish. This can be used for any purpose, but could go directly back into EV and traditional infrastructure if needed.

So the 70% of road duties that are not spent on the roads (but will likely need to be spent partly in the roads - or other methods of transport - or on building the charging infrastructure) are going to come from where? What is that revenue currently spent on - or does is just accumulate as wasted investment funding aborted government projects? Just a money-go-round keeping the government machine functioning and apparently providing "Useful" employment.

Where the money is spent is not relevant. Government will still need it (and more) and will find ways to reclaim the "purchasing power" they nominally issue to their "population".

So what are they going to do to recover the lost revenue whilst attempting to persuade people that cheap electric motive power is absolutely the way to go?

[Evanivitch]

LongQ said:

So what are they going to do to recover the lost revenue whilst attempting to persuade people that cheap electric motive power is absolutely the way to go?

I don't know because I don't run government tax policy. I can only answer your previous question which is how much money is required to repair the roads. The answer is, a lot less than the current tax revenue from motorists.

[LongQ]

Evanivitch said:

LongQ said:

So what are they going to do to recover the lost revenue whilst attempting to persuade people that cheap electric motive power is absolutely the way to go?

I don't know because I don't run government tax policy. I can only answer your previous question which is how much money is required to repair the roads. The answer is, a lot less than the current tax revenue from motorists.

That probably explains the potholes and generally dire way most new roads seem to be built.

Also Smart Motorways and wider lack of usable new developments suited to purpose.

We are not alone of course.Germany and Belgium have had similar chronic underinvestment. in transport infrastructure. France too but last time I was there at least they were managing to re-surface existing roads quickly and smoothly.

Spain seems to have opposite problem - loads of new facilities and no one to use them much of the time.

I sometimes wonder whether the UK network is being deliberately underfunded and under-maintained in an attempt to discourage people from using it.

But yes, we all know that the road users are exposed to fiscal abuse from all sides and used as cash cows. Abuse by governments at all levels. It must be nice for the abusers to have the "we are really doing it because it's good for the planet" excuse to absolve them from all possible socio-economic responsibility.

[Condi]

In other news RR are proceeding with their plan to factory build small nuclear reactors, which they say will be able to be built in 5 years from breaking ground, with capacity of 500-600MW and costing less than £2bn a piece.

By comparison HPC is 15 years or more build for 3.5GW of power and costing £22bn.

If RR really can produce reliable reactors for that kind of money they should be able to find an export market and further reduce costs.

[Gary C]

Condi said:

In other news RR are proceeding with their plan to factory build small nuclear reactors, which they say will be able to be built in 5 years from breaking ground, with capacity of 500-600MW and costing less than £2bn a piece.

By comparison HPC is 15 years or more build for 3.5GW of power and costing £22bn.

If RR really can produce reliable reactors for that kind of money they should be able to find an export market and further reduce costs.

I have heard 'rumors' that SMR's might be an attractive proposition for us next.

Also, we are looking at getting into the hydrogen from nuclear game https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/news-releas...

[LongQ]

Gary,

On the Hydrogen topic, the press release suggests feasibility study by Sept 2019 and demo unit running in 2020. That implies that something might be happening engineering wise by now.

My site search for further Press Releases re Hydrogen returned nothing.

Have you heard any more that may not have been the focus of an officially promoted main site PR job?

[Gary C]

LongQ said:

Gary,

On the Hydrogen topic, the press release suggests feasibility study by Sept 2019 and demo unit running in 2020. That implies that something might be happening engineering wise by now.

My site search for further Press Releases re Hydrogen returned nothing.

Have you heard any more that may not have been the focus of an officially promoted main site PR job?

We were surprised when we saw that, and certainly nothing is happening on site, but I was told at a briefing that its still being considered.

[LongQ]

Gary C said:

LongQ said:

Gary,

On the Hydrogen topic, the press release suggests feasibility study by Sept 2019 and demo unit running in 2020. That implies that something might be happening engineering wise by now.

My site search for further Press Releases re Hydrogen returned nothing.

Have you heard any more that may not have been the focus of an officially promoted main site PR job?

We were surprised when we saw that, and certainly nothing is happening on site, but I was told at a briefing that its still being considered.

There seems to be a fair amount of recent activity in the area of "climate mitigation projects", to use a broad brush label, that involve an PR announcement of some sort and then not much else.

Given the nature of the emergency one might expect greater promotion or followup reports of activity.

PRTVR posted this Forbes link from a couple of years ago in the Politics thread.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/05...

The article makes it sound like action would be imminent and progress might be followed at the research group's web site but there seems to be nothing visible that connects to the story.

The budget being discussed is petty cash in the nature of things so where is the urgency and the continuing promotion of the concept as a low cost approach to saving the world's climate and managing it for the benefit of all?

As a concept it has more evident immediacy for results than, say, Microsoft's idea of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. Moreover to some degree the natural occurrences of volcanic eruptions offer at least some guidance as to likely results. That at least offers some sort of testing option for a form of validation of the experiment.

How things might be managed if the concept was deployed and then a major volcanic eruption came along to introduce its own effects for a year or two may need to be addressed - as would the question of how to globally manage the use of what is suggested to be a low cost technique. Low cost would suggest it could be relatively accessible to anyone.

Dr. Strangelove style megalomania comes to mind.

How much sun screening might it take to induce a new Dark Ages period to the World's history?

Could be good for business in some parts of the world's energy industry? Might that tempt some people to suggest a rather low value for a controlled temperature target?

[Condi]

Gary C said:

I have heard 'rumors' that SMR's might be an attractive proposition for us next.

EDF are the only people to have the experience to run nukes in the UK right now, so would seem the obvious choice. Although given the lack of cash at the moment and the all encompassing project (one, maybe 2) committing to spending another £2bn seems difficult. The 'small' reactors RR are designing are the same output as the current AGRs, so small is a relative term.

[ant1973]

I wonder if I could ask one of the very well informed posters who share their views on the thread a question?

How far do battery prices have to fall to allow renewable energy compete with gas?

From what I can gather, renewable energy is already cost competitive but could never be treated as baseload for a variety of reasons. However, if it was stored in a battery, I understand this might change.

[andymadmak]

ant1973 said:

I wonder if I could ask one of the very well informed posters who share their views on the thread a question?

How far do battery prices have to fall to allow renewable energy compete with gas?

From what I can gather, renewable energy is already cost competitive but could never be treated as baseload for a variety of reasons. However, if it was stored in a battery, I understand this might change.

The problem is the battery tech itself. There are times when we produce LOTS of energy from renewable sources, but we cannot store the excess to any meaningful degree.
As of now, on cold still nights we can crank up the gas plants and the nuclear and such like. There is no battery in existence yet that can store enough energy to do this, and certainly not over an extended period.
Robust technology that facilitates the storing of large amounts of renewable energy is something that several groups are working on....I have links to one of them

[Evanivitch]

ant1973 said:

I wonder if I could ask one of the very well informed posters who share their views on the thread a question?

How far do battery prices have to fall to allow renewable energy compete with gas?

From what I can gather, renewable energy is already cost competitive but could never be treated as baseload for a variety of reasons. However, if it was stored in a battery, I understand this might change.

It's not just the battery price, but a continued decrease in wind and solar. In order for battery systems to work you need massive over-production capabilities when the resources are available.

Personally, I like EV and domestic storage, but I don't think grid level baseload is going to be battery based.

[Condi]

Robust reliable storage already exists in the form of pumped hydro. SSE and Drax both have submitted plans for new, large scale, units but the funding is not as secure as wind power, so the money is going there instead. It needs a strike price or equivalent, and some political will to make it happen.

Part of the justification for the interconnector to Norway is access to their pumped storage units. Both sending cheap power and also buying back power when it is not so cheap.

[LongQ]

Condi said:

Robust reliable storage already exists in the form of pumped hydro. SSE and Drax both have submitted plans for new, large scale, units but the funding is not as secure as wind power, so the money is going there instead. It needs a strike price or equivalent, and some political will to make it happen.

Part of the justification for the interconnector to Norway is access to their pumped storage units. Both sending cheap power and also buying back power when it is not so cheap.

Pumped storage at scale for extended base load supply requires enormous storage capacity and locations are not easy to identify. Especially locations that are somewhat close to where the demand is created, do not involve massive, carbon issuing engineering works and do not significantly change the environment and, potentially, the local climate at some point.

The Chinese know quite a lot about creating mass energy stores using water as the "fuel" of choice.

[Condi]

I wouldn't nessisarily agree with all that, there are sites identified as suitable, which while not that close to demand in UK terms are not that far in terms of how far we can easily ship power. I'd also argue that the carbon intensity and environmental impact is minimal compared with the likes of HPC which is using millions of tonnes of concrete, while the lakes and lochs made by pumped storage schemes are used for pleasure and recreation.

[Nickgnome]

andymadmak said:

ant1973 said:

I wonder if I could ask one of the very well informed posters who share their views on the thread a question?

How far do battery prices have to fall to allow renewable energy compete with gas?

From what I can gather, renewable energy is already cost competitive but could never be treated as baseload for a variety of reasons. However, if it was stored in a battery, I understand this might change.

The problem is the battery tech itself. There are times when we produce LOTS of energy from renewable sources, but we cannot store the excess to any meaningful degree.
As of now, on cold still nights we can crank up the gas plants and the nuclear and such like. There is no battery in existence yet that can store enough energy to do this, and certainly not over an extended period.
Robust technology that facilitates the storing of large amounts of renewable energy is something that several groups are working on....I have links to one of them

Surely if properties were properly insulated the demand would not be impacted so dramatically and base load would decrease anyway.