The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
robinessex said:
That was as much political by Maggie as economics. Germany has considerable reserves of lignite, making it one of the country’s most important indigenous sources of energy. There are long-term prospects to mine about 4 billion tonnes of lignite reserves at existing and approved surface mines.
YepUK coal unions were seen as a Gov threat hence their breakup (and of the CEGB too) but because our coal is deep its very expensive to remove it then opened up the market such that Polish brown coal was cheap and easy to get so everyone did.
Was a nightmare to burn in stations built for Anthracite, wet and sticky and clogged bunkers and feeders like mad.
PRTVR said:
What other option do we have that is carbon free ?
Wind is 0.8 gw at the moment, do we keep building things that are intermittent and require back up?
We can have reliable power which is carbon free, but it's comparatively very expensive. HPC has a CfD of £92 at 2015 (?) prices while offshore wind has a CfD of £45 at 2019 (?) prices. Onshore wind is competitive without any support at all.Wind is 0.8 gw at the moment, do we keep building things that are intermittent and require back up?
SMRs are unproven and while they should be cheaper until someone actually builds one then nobody really knows. It still doesnt get round the problem of flexibility, ie changing output. While going up and down in load is not too bad, it's not great to be turning them on and off, even an SMR.
FYI transmission wind has been up to 14GW today, plus about 3GW of distribution connected wind and we've been importing cheap power from Ireland as a result of their excess wind generation. Nobody has said we should rely on wind 24/7, but you cannot argue it's not a useful source of power, especially given how cheap it is thanks to the support over the last decade or so.
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
What other option do we have that is carbon free ?
Wind is 0.8 gw at the moment, do we keep building things that are intermittent and require back up?
Yes, we do.Wind is 0.8 gw at the moment, do we keep building things that are intermittent and require back up?
Balance is what we will need to achieve.
Will be interesting, once the last coal station is closed if the CC spotlight will switch to them as there is no legislation at present to encourage/force their closure (unlike coal which was pre CC)
Condi said:
SMRs are unproven and while they should be cheaper until someone actually builds one then nobody really knows. It still doesnt get round the problem of flexibility, ie changing output. While going up and down in load is not too bad, it's not great to be turning them on and off, even an SMR.
This article suggests that load following with the right design isn't the issue that it's made out to be for nuclear.https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuc...
Ultimately though, we need an energy sink, like hydrogen electrolyzers, to dump excess energy into for other purposes too.
Evanivitch said:
Condi said:
SMRs are unproven and while they should be cheaper until someone actually builds one then nobody really knows. It still doesnt get round the problem of flexibility, ie changing output. While going up and down in load is not too bad, it's not great to be turning them on and off, even an SMR.
This article suggests that load following with the right design isn't the issue that it's made out to be for nuclear.https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuc...
Ultimately though, we need an energy sink, like hydrogen electrolyzers, to dump excess energy into for other purposes too.
In new designs, it can be accounted for.
Gary C said:
Our station was designed to have frequency control but an issued called Pellet Clad Interaction (PCI) was discovered on a test reactor and meant various restrictions on our operation. It occurs as UO2 expands during irradiation and impinges on the clad. It then can cause clad failure due to expansion and contraction fretting/ratcheting. I know PWR;s have the issue but not on how it affects their operation in any detail but in the AGR's it basically prevented any load following operations.
In new designs, it can be accounted for.
Interesting insight, thank you!In new designs, it can be accounted for.
From memory Sizewell was designed to alter their load and can do so pretty well - all of last summer the reactor was at half power. Equally the French designs can change load too in response to prices or need, but for some reason Sizewell never got their safety case signed off to alter load for commercial reasons. I suspect that when it was built then negative prices for extended periods of time were simply never anticipated and so there was never considered a need to change load, after all it would have been the cheapest form of generation and therefore would have been expected to run baseload for its lifetime. In France with much higher nuclear output then having some flex on the units is more important in order to account for periods of low demand.
HPC and SC will be able to change load in response to commercial needs but not sure by how much.
HPC and SC will be able to change load in response to commercial needs but not sure by how much.
On a completely separate note, Ofgem announced the other day that in a few (many) years time the whole market will go to half hourly settlement. This will standardise Time of Use tariffs and mean that anyone not on a smart meter by then is likely to be paying considerably more than those who do have one, even without any attempts to move their usage around.
Here is a little blog someone wrote about the possibilities...
"Ofgem have announced that in a mere 4 years and 6 months we will have what some in the industry have been asking for over 10 years for...Half hour settlement across the industry.
Ofgem have stated that due to the magnitude of the potential net benefits it was not a should we do it? but when we should do it? This is where I slightly disagree with Ofgem, half hour settlement is half of the solution needed to see the massive benefits that could be made.
Half hour settlement is a step to cheaper bills but without further changes a lot of that value is left on the table. I propose two further changes:
Allow consumers to sign up to different suppliers in each settlement period of the day.
Allow near real time swapping of tariffs and suppliers.
The technology is out there to allow both of the above to happen in conjunction with Ofgem's half hour settlements so why not reach for the moon and deliver something that will material benefit all customers?
If we allowed customers to sign up with different suppliers in each settlement period of the day this would allow suppliers to not only offer time of day tariffs, but to actually flex their customer base, which in turn could flatten out their demand profile making it easier to trade or generate power to meet the demand at a reduced cost (per MWh). This cost would have to be passed to customers because failing to do so would see the customer looking for better priced options for those periods.
This is where near real time tariff swapping comes in. Being able to swap to another supplier at a moment's notice and for that swap to happen in less than 2hours (not 2 weeks) takes away the hassle of changing suppliers meaning more people will do it, but that's not the only benefit. If you can swap within two hours the more progressive companies out there will use this to their benefit and show live prices that change when their forecast or the market changes. Imagine a new wind forecast comes in that shows an increase of 10MW, the supplier could offer that 10MW to customers who could decide to switch to get a better deal.
Now I know a lot of you out there will say, but will the customer have the motivation to swap supplier at the last minute or to have different suppliers across different parts of the day and then see a number of different bills? I would agree that with the exception of the few they will not be engaged enough to get the value from these changes, but if you allow it to happen, I can assure you that there will be companies out there that can and will manage the switching for you and you will get one bill at the end of the month.
Smart meters and half hourly settlement is a small step for energy, we now need to use the technology we have to make the giant leap to benefit the customers. "
Here is a little blog someone wrote about the possibilities...
"Ofgem have announced that in a mere 4 years and 6 months we will have what some in the industry have been asking for over 10 years for...Half hour settlement across the industry.
Ofgem have stated that due to the magnitude of the potential net benefits it was not a should we do it? but when we should do it? This is where I slightly disagree with Ofgem, half hour settlement is half of the solution needed to see the massive benefits that could be made.
Half hour settlement is a step to cheaper bills but without further changes a lot of that value is left on the table. I propose two further changes:
Allow consumers to sign up to different suppliers in each settlement period of the day.
Allow near real time swapping of tariffs and suppliers.
The technology is out there to allow both of the above to happen in conjunction with Ofgem's half hour settlements so why not reach for the moon and deliver something that will material benefit all customers?
If we allowed customers to sign up with different suppliers in each settlement period of the day this would allow suppliers to not only offer time of day tariffs, but to actually flex their customer base, which in turn could flatten out their demand profile making it easier to trade or generate power to meet the demand at a reduced cost (per MWh). This cost would have to be passed to customers because failing to do so would see the customer looking for better priced options for those periods.
This is where near real time tariff swapping comes in. Being able to swap to another supplier at a moment's notice and for that swap to happen in less than 2hours (not 2 weeks) takes away the hassle of changing suppliers meaning more people will do it, but that's not the only benefit. If you can swap within two hours the more progressive companies out there will use this to their benefit and show live prices that change when their forecast or the market changes. Imagine a new wind forecast comes in that shows an increase of 10MW, the supplier could offer that 10MW to customers who could decide to switch to get a better deal.
Now I know a lot of you out there will say, but will the customer have the motivation to swap supplier at the last minute or to have different suppliers across different parts of the day and then see a number of different bills? I would agree that with the exception of the few they will not be engaged enough to get the value from these changes, but if you allow it to happen, I can assure you that there will be companies out there that can and will manage the switching for you and you will get one bill at the end of the month.
Smart meters and half hourly settlement is a small step for energy, we now need to use the technology we have to make the giant leap to benefit the customers. "
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
What other option do we have that is carbon free ?
Wind is 0.8 gw at the moment, do we keep building things that are intermittent and require back up?
We can have reliable power which is carbon free, but it's comparatively very expensive. HPC has a CfD of £92 at 2015 (?) prices while offshore wind has a CfD of £45 at 2019 (?) prices. Onshore wind is competitive without any support at all.Wind is 0.8 gw at the moment, do we keep building things that are intermittent and require back up?
SMRs are unproven and while they should be cheaper until someone actually builds one then nobody really knows. It still doesnt get round the problem of flexibility, ie changing output. While going up and down in load is not too bad, it's not great to be turning them on and off, even an SMR.
FYI transmission wind has been up to 14GW today, plus about 3GW of distribution connected wind and we've been importing cheap power from Ireland as a result of their excess wind generation. Nobody has said we should rely on wind 24/7, but you cannot argue it's not a useful source of power, especially given how cheap it is thanks to the support over the last decade or so.
Wind was missing from the 8th April till the second of May, its nice to see it back but I question the economics.
PRTVR said:
but I question the economics.
You can question the economics if you like, but onshore wind and solar are economic without support (ie already build and running) and it won't be long until someone builds unsupported offshore wind too. Probably within the next 2 years? The last round of offshore CfD's were as low as £45 (at 2019(?) prices). To give you some idea, winter baseload is probably about £55/60, which means that on average the wind turbines will actually be paying money back to the government, rather than receiving support - any price above £45 means they pay money to the government, any price below £45 means they receive money.
In practice it's more complicated and during times of high wind then you'll see lower prices, and times of low wind higher prices, but if prices are negative for more than 12 half hours then the government doesn't have to pay the subsidy, and so irrespective of how much wind we build the government isn't hugely on the hook for days of negative price support.
What people who bang on about renewable subsidies forget is that thermal generation is supported too, and has been for years. Capacity market payments are given out to the tune of £10's of millions to thermal stations to be available if required. This is not a new thing, in direct response to increased renewable generation, but just National Grid's way of keeping enough plant available in case of outages and high demand.
Condi said:
You can question the economics if you like, but onshore wind and solar are economic without support (ie already build and running) and it won't be long until someone builds unsupported offshore wind too. Probably within the next 2 years?
.
In fairness, his point isn't about the generation, it's about the grid..
So for a wind turbine to provide the same grid stability as a gas power station it would need to have significant over capacity and/or storage to provide the same service.
That's not me kicking wind, it works great to supplement gas and reduce the need for imports. But if we move to "100% Renewables" then the costs to support solar and wind have to be recognised and fairly attributed. At the moment, they're not.
Evanivitch said:
In fairness, his point isn't about the generation, it's about the grid.
So for a wind turbine to provide the same grid stability as a gas power station it would need to have significant over capacity and/or storage to provide the same service.
That's not me kicking wind, it works great to supplement gas and reduce the need for imports. But if we move to "100% Renewables" then the costs to support solar and wind have to be recognised and fairly attributed. At the moment, they're not.
You're confusing different phrases/issues there. So for a wind turbine to provide the same grid stability as a gas power station it would need to have significant over capacity and/or storage to provide the same service.
That's not me kicking wind, it works great to supplement gas and reduce the need for imports. But if we move to "100% Renewables" then the costs to support solar and wind have to be recognised and fairly attributed. At the moment, they're not.
"Grid stability" means it's resilience to things like unit failures, and wind makes no difference to that. NG can manage it in the same way they do now with thermal units, ie bidding them back slightly to provide headroom which is what they do all day long with gas units. There are some issues around inertia with renewables but that is becoming less of an issue with more batteries, inertia providers, increased understanding of how to get the best from renewable generation etc.
Regarding "100% renewables", nobody within the industry has argued for that. The phrase is "net zero" which is very different. We are not going to leave thermal generation behind for decades, if ever, and yet at other times the grid may well be powered by renewables for periods. It's why there is investment into carbon capture, carbon offset etc which allow the burning of fossil fuels while having no net contribution to CO2 levels. The whole idea that we will ever (at least in the next 25/30 years!) close down all the gas and thermal stations is just impractical and complete nonsense.
Condi said:
You're confusing different phrases/issues there.
"Grid stability" means it's resilience to things like unit failures, and wind makes no difference to that. NG can manage it in the same way they do now with thermal units, ie bidding them back slightly to provide headroom which is what they do all day long with gas units. There are some issues around inertia with renewables but that is becoming less of an issue with more batteries, inertia providers, increased understanding of how to get the best from renewable generation etc.
Regarding "100% renewables", nobody within the industry has argued for that. The phrase is "net zero" which is very different. We are not going to leave thermal generation behind for decades, if ever, and yet at other times the grid may well be powered by renewables for periods. It's why there is investment into carbon capture, carbon offset etc which allow the burning of fossil fuels while having no net contribution to CO2 levels. The whole idea that we will ever (at least in the next 25/30 years!) close down all the gas and thermal stations is just impractical and complete nonsense.
You're correctly stating the reality (which I'm aware of and totally agree with) but it's not the position of many idealists which I've come across."Grid stability" means it's resilience to things like unit failures, and wind makes no difference to that. NG can manage it in the same way they do now with thermal units, ie bidding them back slightly to provide headroom which is what they do all day long with gas units. There are some issues around inertia with renewables but that is becoming less of an issue with more batteries, inertia providers, increased understanding of how to get the best from renewable generation etc.
Regarding "100% renewables", nobody within the industry has argued for that. The phrase is "net zero" which is very different. We are not going to leave thermal generation behind for decades, if ever, and yet at other times the grid may well be powered by renewables for periods. It's why there is investment into carbon capture, carbon offset etc which allow the burning of fossil fuels while having no net contribution to CO2 levels. The whole idea that we will ever (at least in the next 25/30 years!) close down all the gas and thermal stations is just impractical and complete nonsense.
As I said, many will chant that a 100% renewables grid will be cheaper because of the cheap price of wind and solar. Bit they never put a number on the price of the battery capacity and over capacity required to achieve it.
Evanivitch said:
You're correctly stating the reality (which I'm aware of and totally agree with) but it's not the position of many idealists which I've come across.
As I said, many will chant that a 100% renewables grid will be cheaper because of the cheap price of wind and solar. Bit they never put a number on the price of the battery capacity and over capacity required to achieve it.
Surely overcapacity is a necessity in any power generation system. Maintenance, failure and replacement have to be accounted for somewhere.As I said, many will chant that a 100% renewables grid will be cheaper because of the cheap price of wind and solar. Bit they never put a number on the price of the battery capacity and over capacity required to achieve it.
As this thread is 'The Future or Power Generation then we should be looking at +5; +10; +20; +50 years not just today or next week.
Nickgnome said:
Surely overcapacity is a necessity in any power generation system. Maintenance, failure and replacement have to be accounted for somewhere.
As this thread is 'The Future or Power Generation then we should be looking at +5; +10; +20; +50 years not just today or next week.
In thermal units, completely agree.As this thread is 'The Future or Power Generation then we should be looking at +5; +10; +20; +50 years not just today or next week.
In Renewables, like wind, you need overcapacity to ensure that even in low-wind events you have sufficient generation. Bit also to produce excess for storage when the wind really does drop or to meet variations in demand.
But that also means that there is a threshold where wind generation will be excessive, and that will be more likely the greater the overcapacity. Unless you have means to sink that excess energy, like hydrogen electrolyzers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff