The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Evanivitch]

Condi said:

Evanivitch said:

New plans for Wylfa. 1GW cluster of SMR from the US, and a 1GW wind farm.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55682005

I'll eat my hat if that goes ahead.

Small company based in Leamington Spa with seemingly 4 employees mostly from a renewable energy or small scale consumer finance background somehow expects to raise £8bn and run an untested and unapproved nuclear powerplant.

That's exactly the kind of thing the Welsh Government like to invest heavily in and achieve nothing from!

[eliot]

Evanivitch said:

That's exactly the kind of thing the Welsh Government like to invest heavily in and achieve nothing from!

the circuit of wales tvr nuclear reactor

[Evanivitch]

eliot said:

Evanivitch said:

That's exactly the kind of thing the Welsh Government like to invest heavily in and achieve nothing from!

the circuit of wales tvr nuclear reactor

Just needs Ineos to put their name to it and it's a done deal!

[hidetheelephants]

Evanivitch said:

eliot said:

Evanivitch said:

That's exactly the kind of thing the Welsh Government like to invest heavily in and achieve nothing from!

the circuit of wales tvr nuclear reactor

Just needs Ineos to put their name to it and it's a done deal!

Not as daft a suggestion as it might appear; there's at least one SMR concept that's designed as much for generating process heat as electricity, with an eye on supplying power to oil sand extraction sites. Similar power requirement exists at oil refineries.

[Evanivitch]

hidetheelephants said:

Evanivitch said:

eliot said:

Evanivitch said:

That's exactly the kind of thing the Welsh Government like to invest heavily in and achieve nothing from!

the circuit of wales tvr nuclear reactor

Just needs Ineos to put their name to it and it's a done deal!

Not as daft a suggestion as it might appear; there's at least one SMR concept that's designed as much for generating process heat as electricity, with an eye on supplying power to oil sand extraction sites. Similar power requirement exists at oil refineries.

We discussed a more joined up approach to "waste heat" earlier in the thread, most of us are in favour of it.

But also Ineos are wading into green hydrogen generation which is also mentioned in the link.

Personally, I think Ineos would have a tough time having burned bridges with the WG over the Bridgend site.

[eliot]

Evanivitch said:

Personally, I think Ineos would have a tough time having burned bridges with the WG over the Bridgend site.

WG seem to back any hair-brained scheme that promises jobs for the boyo’s - any past misdemeanours are rapidly forgotten about

[Gary C]

Can't see anyone building another reactor apart from EDF who are psychologically wedded to them until the Government makes it happen.

Would love to see UK PLC build a fleet of RR SMR's.

There was a rumour that Sizewell C would be SMR's but I haven't talked to anyone in the know for quite a while (but the person I got it from was highly involved with HPC so it wasn't just talk)

On other news, Heysham 1 graphite inspections have been a success which means the reactors are on target to at least meet their planned shutdown dates and now back in service

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

Gary C said:

Can't see anyone building another reactor apart from EDF who are psychologically wedded to them until the Government makes it happen.

Would love to see UK PLC build a fleet of RR SMR's.

There was a rumour that Sizewell C would be SMR's but I haven't talked to anyone in the know for quite a while (but the person I got it from was highly involved with HPC so it wasn't just talk)

On other news, Heysham 1 graphite inspections have been a success which means the reactors are on target to at least meet their planned shutdown dates and now back in service

You read the BEIS paper yet - came out just before Christmas.

Gov's ambition is SMR demonstrator critical by 2030. AMR demonstrator critical by 2030,and fusion by 2040.

[Gary C]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

You read the BEIS paper yet - came out just before Christmas.

Gov's ambition is SMR demonstrator critical by 2030. AMR demonstrator critical by 2030,and fusion by 2040.

But its got no real teeth and places no real money in mouths, almost like Blairs energy review.

[hidetheelephants]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

Gary C said:

Can't see anyone building another reactor apart from EDF who are psychologically wedded to them until the Government makes it happen.

Would love to see UK PLC build a fleet of RR SMR's.

There was a rumour that Sizewell C would be SMR's but I haven't talked to anyone in the know for quite a while (but the person I got it from was highly involved with HPC so it wasn't just talk)

On other news, Heysham 1 graphite inspections have been a success which means the reactors are on target to at least meet their planned shutdown dates and now back in service

You read the BEIS paper yet - came out just before Christmas.

Gov's ambition is SMR demonstrator critical by 2030. AMR demonstrator critical by 2030,and fusion by 2040.

Have they found a billion or so down the back of the sofa? Designing and building two different FOAKs will cost that.

[wisbech]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

. US air regulators have taken the step to publish concerns regarding glass-cockpit tech.

Ah "The Children of the Magenta Line". Yes - there have been a couple of accidents due to pilots just not understanding what the plane was doing once the autopilot was off (AF447), and so the regulators have asked airlines to increase training on upset/ stall recovery

However, airline accidents/flights have reduced by a factor of 5 or 6 since glass cockpits were introduced (about 1984 or so) Autopilots, TCAS, GPWS, realistic simulators etc have all meant that now one of the bigger risks is mental health (Germanwings, Egyptair, Silkair all had suicide accidents)

Maybe power generation hasn't been as dramatic, but modern tech has been a game changer in airline safety

(though the point about obsolete tech remains - CRT screens can be a big headache)

[Mikehig]

The impact on the grid of EV charging loads comes up frequently. Now it looks as if legislative changes are in the works to give network operators the facility to control EV charging remotely to protect the networks from overloads:
https://smartenergycodecompany.co.uk/modifications...

It defines the issue as:
"This modification proposes changes to the SEC to enable electricity Distribution Network Operators to use Smart Meter infrastructure to modify Electric Vehicle charging load within a household. This is in order to avoid the risk of overloading low voltage circuits from secondary substations to properties, and therefore avoid power outages."
And the solution:
"The solution discussed at the Working Groups is to use Han Connected Auxiliary Load Control Switches (HCALCS). The HCALCS will be connected to domestic Electric Vehicle chargers, and this modification seeks to allow Electricity Distributors to send the relevant Service Request via the DCC to alter the load on a domestic Electric Vehicle charger. This would be in the event that the Electricity Distributor detects a potential risk of overloading on a low voltage network."

If I were an EV owner, remote control of EV charging would raise concern. However I don’t know enough about the inner workings of the industry to understand whether this is a significant matter or simply a provision for unlikely emergencies.
It would be interesting to get some knowledgeable comments.

[Evanivitch]

Mikehig said:

The impact on the grid of EV charging loads comes up frequently. Now it looks as if legislative changes are in the works to give network operators the facility to control EV charging remotely to protect the networks from overloads:
https://smartenergycodecompany.co.uk/modifications...

It defines the issue as:
"This modification proposes changes to the SEC to enable electricity Distribution Network Operators to use Smart Meter infrastructure to modify Electric Vehicle charging load within a household. This is in order to avoid the risk of overloading low voltage circuits from secondary substations to properties, and therefore avoid power outages."
And the solution:
"The solution discussed at the Working Groups is to use Han Connected Auxiliary Load Control Switches (HCALCS). The HCALCS will be connected to domestic Electric Vehicle chargers, and this modification seeks to allow Electricity Distributors to send the relevant Service Request via the DCC to alter the load on a domestic Electric Vehicle charger. This would be in the event that the Electricity Distributor detects a potential risk of overloading on a low voltage network."

If I were an EV owner, remote control of EV charging would raise concern. However I don’t know enough about the inner workings of the industry to understand whether this is a significant matter or simply a provision for unlikely emergencies.
It would be interesting to get some knowledgeable comments.

Why would you describe a technical discussion from 2018 as "now", "legislative changes" and "in the works"?

[Condi]

There was a modification proposed recently to allow that, with some more caveats and safeguards. The argument is that in the event the local network is under stress it is far better to just disconnect the EV load than what would happen now which is the transformer would be disconnected and an entire area would lose all their power.

Seems reasonable to me, may as well use the flexibility and technology to benefit consumers, although it is a bit of a sticking plaster over potential underinvestment.

[BigFatWombat]

Condi said:

There was a modification proposed recently to allow that, with some more caveats and safeguards. The argument is that in the event the local network is under stress it is far better to just disconnect the EV load than what would happen now which is the transformer would be disconnected and an entire area would lose all their power.

Seems reasonable to me, may as well use the flexibility and technology to benefit consumers, although it is a bit of a sticking plaster over potential underinvestment.

So in essence would this mean that customers would plug in their EV for an overnight charge and wake up in the morning to discover the EV wasn’t charged? Or at least perhaps only partly charged? Because the network had disconnected them?

[Meeten-5dulx]

BigFatWombat said:

Condi said:

There was a modification proposed recently to allow that, with some more caveats and safeguards. The argument is that in the event the local network is under stress it is far better to just disconnect the EV load than what would happen now which is the transformer would be disconnected and an entire area would lose all their power.

Seems reasonable to me, may as well use the flexibility and technology to benefit consumers, although it is a bit of a sticking plaster over potential underinvestment.

So in essence would this mean that customers would plug in their EV for an overnight charge and wake up in the morning to discover the EV wasn’t charged? Or at least perhaps only partly charged? Because the network had disconnected them?

As opposed to have lost power in the whole house.

This is for extreme events, not just 5hits n giggles....

[rscott]

Meeten-5dulx said:

BigFatWombat said:

Condi said:

There was a modification proposed recently to allow that, with some more caveats and safeguards. The argument is that in the event the local network is under stress it is far better to just disconnect the EV load than what would happen now which is the transformer would be disconnected and an entire area would lose all their power.

Seems reasonable to me, may as well use the flexibility and technology to benefit consumers, although it is a bit of a sticking plaster over potential underinvestment.

So in essence would this mean that customers would plug in their EV for an overnight charge and wake up in the morning to discover the EV wasn’t charged? Or at least perhaps only partly charged? Because the network had disconnected them?

As opposed to have lost power in the whole house.

This is for extreme events, not just 5hits n giggles....

Judging by the most recent documents here - https://smartenergycodecompany.co.uk/modifications... - it's something which would require prior agreement with the consumer and be for a maximum of 12 months, while local network upgrades are in progress.

[Gary C]

BigFatWombat said:

Condi said:

There was a modification proposed recently to allow that, with some more caveats and safeguards. The argument is that in the event the local network is under stress it is far better to just disconnect the EV load than what would happen now which is the transformer would be disconnected and an entire area would lose all their power.

Seems reasonable to me, may as well use the flexibility and technology to benefit consumers, although it is a bit of a sticking plaster over potential underinvestment.

So in essence would this mean that customers would plug in their EV for an overnight charge and wake up in the morning to discover the EV wasn’t charged? Or at least perhaps only partly charged? Because the network had disconnected them?

It probably would only be to remove peaks, so for example it might cut charging at 6pm when lots of electric ovens are on, then reset later in the evening so shouldn't lead to a flat car. With a really smart system, a flatter car could get priority over a more charged car etc.
The idea of allowing cars to power the grid seems to have gone quiet

[Evanivitch]

Gary C said:

The idea of allowing cars to power the grid seems to have gone quiet

It has and it hasn't. The current standard for V2G/H is only available on Chademo platforms, which is pretty much the Nissan Leaf in the UK. Units are being tested but they're also expensive and only some DNO are using the trial.

The much more common CCS standard does not have a V2G/H standard yet, but is planned for 2022/23. Unlikely to be retrospectively applied.

Tesla have also supposedly made modifications to their AC connector which may open up the ability to V2G/H via a type 2 AC port. However this would be a Tesla proprietary approach and as yet nothing more has been heard (Tesla only recently adopted CCS on their supercharger network, so it's not unlike them to it alone when the industry standard doesn't suit them, much like Apple).

[Gary C]

Evanivitch said:

Gary C said:

The idea of allowing cars to power the grid seems to have gone quiet

It has and it hasn't. The current standard for V2G/H is only available on Chademo platforms, which is pretty much the Nissan Leaf in the UK. Units are being tested but they're also expensive and only some DNO are using the trial.

The much more common CCS standard does not have a V2G/H standard yet, but is planned for 2022/23. Unlikely to be retrospectively applied.

Tesla have also supposedly made modifications to their AC connector which may open up the ability to V2G/H via a type 2 AC port. However this would be a Tesla proprietary approach and as yet nothing more has been heard (Tesla only recently adopted CCS on their supercharger network, so it's not unlike them to it alone when the industry standard doesn't suit them, much like Apple).

I wonder how local transformer protection equipment will respond to current not going in the direction it was designed for. I bet older stuff like P&B Golds would be less affected, but not so sure of some of the early 'electronic' relays.