National Grid Share Discussion Threads

[darias] 02/8/2016 20:58

M100 Thank you for your post I might just order that book but it will have to make very powerful arguments for me to accept nuclear with its legacy for future generations which has not been solved for 35-40 years power.I compare nuclear to the problems of asbestos where we bury it in holes for future generations to find. There is no such place as "away".

[m100] 02/8/2016 12:01

Whatever Germany wants to do is really their decision alone, that Energiewende and acclerated closure of their nuclear capability has done nothing but drive up domestic consumer energy prices to the very top of those within the EU (and indeed across the entire industrialised world), increased the levy domestic consumers have to pay to maintain stable prices for large industrial users, has led to negative energy pricing at times of peak solar output, has lead to issues on grid systems in adjacent countries, and has increased CO2 emissions is all a matter of record. Sat on high it might smell of roses but at ground level it really stinks of horse manure.

France, with a very high nuclear penetration, today meeting around 80% of their national demand, is, as right now, emitting around 40g CO2/kWh. Germany meanwhile... well I leave you to find that figure. I'll warn you It's not pretty reading. In fact I recommend sitting somewhere with nearby medical assistance as the shock hits. But that is to be fully expected when their nuclear capability is now below that of the UK but with a winter peak demand some 70% higher than that of the UK.

Many in the UK could indeed have solar panels on their roofs, and assuming space heating is not by electricity the annual output of those panels may often exceed their annual electricity usage. But for such a system to actually meet the usage during the month of January would require a system oversized by a factor of about four, and that is merely to meet the totalised electricity demand across a 24 hour period, not when it is actually required. Factor in the costs of storage to move that supply capability to the time of demand be it winter evening, or winter breakfast and it's another £1k per annum in storage costs alone, where the current total costs of electricity supply from our existing generation for the exact same load profile is under £700 delivered to the consumer.

Your quote "Whilst most of Germany's energy comes from fossil fuels. 25% of its energy in 2012 came from renewables"

That is electricity supply not total energy, when you look at the whole picture of space heating, transport and industrial fuelling etc then the 20% renewables figure is pathetic.

So Darius, with respect, please take a while to read Sir David MacKay's book, then you might begin to recognise the harsh realities and limitations of renewables.

To get this slightly back on subject the 2016 version of Future Energy Scenarios was recently published by NG.

[darias] 02/8/2016 06:16

Whilst most of Germany's energy comes from fossil fuels. 25% of its energy in 2012 came from renewables a level that the Uk did not reach until 2015. (It does include wood pellets as renewables)

[pierre oreilly] 01/8/2016 17:01

Darias, this board has always been one of the better boards on advfn and hasn't suffered from the usual guff of most other boards. I think I'll leave others to answer you and hope you'll try to keep this board at a reasonable quality level.

[darias] 01/8/2016 16:15

You still have not answered my points. I am, also, not a fan of wind turbines but the tides are more predictable and we have not really utilised this source of energy. Btw I do know the difference between a gigawatt and a megawatt. But you would prefer to talk in jargon and ridicule those that don't.

[pierre oreilly] 01/8/2016 11:18

Darius, sorry if you take correcting your assertion that 'all generation is dispatchable' as a lecture. I just think it's correcting a very basic error, which incidentally, I appreciate and thank the person for when it happens to me.

m100, yes, doing a cursory quantitative analysis really shows a true picture. But therein lies the problem. I doubt there are many greens who are able to 'look at the numbers', and for those who can, they probably don't mean much. I suspect even terms such as GW TWh and suchlike really have zero meaning to those who so easily come up with many and varied generation technologies. Ignorance really frees the mind.

[darias] 01/8/2016 10:44

M100 If nuclear is the answer why has Germany, a virtual landlocked country, with greater population and a larger industrial base foresworn its use. If the industrialists in this country are so enamoured of nuclear energy make more use of that nuclear power station we all see every morning when it is not cloudy.I have a friend who has put solar panels on his roof and is regularly contributing to the grid rather than taking. We ought to be thinking of greater saving of energy rather than looking for the instant solution.

[darias] 01/8/2016 07:39

Hey Pierre I will not take lectures from you when you can't even spell Dinorwig.Btw any physicist is aware that in order to turn a turbine you need water or air flow. The topography is not so important as water will flow at any change of level. Granted it will flow faster at a steep change of level. However imagine a resevoir capturing the tide and then releasing it at low water. Better still you don't have to imagine it you can go to Woodbridge and see it. But why wait for the tide as that will not cover peak demand. Use the power generated by the tides to fill a resevoir next to the coast and at peak demand use that stored energy to meet peak demand. If you cannot face the objections by the coast dwellers then put your resevoir out at sea. Having this year had to steer my boat through the farms of Barrow I know the technology is possible.If we can build the monstrous buildings at Hinkley Point, Dungeness, (Where incidentally we pay for a labour comparable to Sysiphus where daily the beach is reinstated to prevent meltdown), Bradwell and Sizewell we can build equivalent structures to store water without the inherent risks.

[darias] 01/8/2016 07:38

Hey Pierre I will not take lectures from you when you can't even spell Dinorwig.Btw any physicist is aware that in order to turn a turbine you need water or air flow. The topography is not so important as water will flow at any change of level. Granted it will flow faster at a steep change of level. However imagine a resevoir capturing the tide and then releasing it at low water. Better still you don't have to imagine it you can go to Woodbridge and see it. But why wait for the tide as that will not cover peak demand. Use the power generated by the tides to fill a resevoir next to the coast and at peak demand use that stored energy to meet peak demand. If you cannot face the objections by the coast dwellers then put your resevoir out at sea. Having this year had to steer my boat through the farms of Barrow I know the technology is possible.If we can build the monstrous buildings at Hinkley Point, Dungeness, (Where incidentally we pay for a labour comparable to Sysiphus where daily the beach is reinstated to prevent meltdown), Bradwell and Sizewell we can build equivalent structures to store water without the inherent risks.

[redartbmud] 31/7/2016 22:51

Which looneytoon stretched the page width from John O'Groats to Lands End?

[prewar] 31/7/2016 22:04

StevieBlunder

CFD prices are typical smoke and mirrors unless you compare apples with apples. Hinkley is indeed £92.50 but on a 35 yr basis and excludes the decomm costs which UK plc will be on the hook for, most CFD's including wind will be quoted for 15 or 20 yrs.

Still I think Nuclear should be built but probably not this technology and not sure why we can't finance it ourselves when debt is dirt cheap currently.

I also think CCS and tidal could get below wind CFD levels on like for like basis if sufficient scale built and much more predictable. That useless halfwit Osborne did for CCS last year though so can't see that coming back any time soon unless a change of govt.

[utyinv] 31/7/2016 21:45

pierre,

Constraints effecting Dino outage; not often but do occur.

re your last para; unfortunately, Gov, DECC and Ofgem, believe me, are out of their depth when it comes to understanding the System.

[pierre oreilly] 31/7/2016 20:23

Uty, yeah, agree with all of that, more or less said the same. Mostly, people seem to think Dino is all about storing energy in cheap periods and selling it in expensive periods, whereas that is a secondary function, with primary and secondary reserve as its primary function. The whole shebang was justified initially by primary reserve supply, releasing that duty from other dispatchable stations which then were free to operate at their max efficiency point.

Seems crazy if there are often transmission constraints on the lines from dino - looks like connecting windmills may have taken higher priority than upgrading.

I'm not sure the government (let alone the average bod) realises that closing steam plant means less primary reserve supply, just at the time when more is needed to correct for rising intermittent generation, which, as you say, will soon lead to problems (but that has been forseen for several years without much substantial heppening to solve it).

[utyinv] 31/7/2016 19:44

Pierre,

Dino also acts as a normal generator in commercial terms to meet peak demand as well as immediate response. So not all the energy is used for immediate response but yes it's famous for Fast Response especially when the Gens are spinning in air (0 to 300MW in 12 secs). Also lets not forget that Ffestiniog was the first major pumped storage Generator in the UK, commissioned in 1963.

The trouble with Pumped Storage is at times the constraints on the system (Dino - Pent outages etc etc) can restrict output so we need more response from other despatchable generators. Let's not forget that most of all the coal fired power stations were contracted to provide Ancillary Services to the System Operator to help maintain the freq. These coal fired power stations are closing and the lack of instantaneous Primary and Secondary response will provide Grid with a large problem. Battery Storage will help in the future (future projects).

Let's not forget that if the Gov takes the System Operator off us the profits generated from that part of the business is approx £70-90m from Company wide total profits of approx £2b. So not as catastrophic as the markets would make believe and the problem of managing the system from an SO perspective will not be ours :)

BTW, The fact that Grid part owns the interconnectors should be a nice earner for the future.

[pvb] 31/7/2016 18:56

And our PS is justified on reserve duty considerations, not storing cheap energy for use later, which is a secondary duty
(wiki will probably tell you differently).

Err... No it won't.



"Its purpose is not to help meet peak loads but as a "Short Term Operating Reserve", to provide a fast response to
short-term rapid changes in power demand."

One of Oreilly's (very many) conceits is that he knows far more about everything
than Wikipedia's contributors do.

[stevie blunder] 31/7/2016 18:32

Hinkley Point (if it can be made to work) at 95£/MWh looks quite reasonable when you see these offshore wind projects:



Lots over 150£/MWh, and intermittent, so in any rational world worth less than dispatchable.

[pierre oreilly] 31/7/2016 17:24

Darius, if you have no idea what 'dispatchable' means, then why comment?

Everyone on this thread is aware of pumped storage btw, and i bet several have actually worked, like me, on Dinorwig systems.

No, all generation is not dispatchable.

Pumped storage is on our grid too, in Wales. Unfortunately, in England and Wales there is no scope really for any more due to its massive costs and the topography required. And our PS is justified on reserve duty considerations, not storing cheap energy for use later, which is a secondary duty (wiki will probably tell you differently). Scotland has much more scope for pumped storage and can economically time shift energy delivery without the financial benefit of primary reserve duty. But Scotland has plenty of electricity resources anyway, unlike our grid.

[bountyhunter] 31/7/2016 15:12

Yes that's a great solution in Scotland, I saw a TV program about it. Could do with more of those elsewhere but must depend on suitable terrain to a large degree?

[darias] 31/7/2016 14:19

All generation is "dispatchable". At times of low demand use the power to pump water up hill then it can come on demand when it is needed.

This is done with the Hydro electric plant in Scotland

See hxxp://www.hi-energy.org.uk/renewables/hydro-energy.htm

In particular, "They would be the first schemes developed in Britain for more than 35 years to use the pumped storage technique. During low power demand periods, water is pumped by electricity from a loch to an upper reservoir and is then released to generate power during high demand periods."

[pvb] 30/7/2016 19:17

Here's quite an interesting article:

Yeah... possibly. Don't ask me for an opinion on the matter, I haven't a clue. Apart from that it appears all very risky one way or another.
Presumably the ex CFO of EDF would agree!

However, the article itself is by, (ahem!) Christopher Booker. So, forgive me tonio,
but my first and last instinct is to chuck it straight into my mental dustbin. Sorry.

[tonio] 30/7/2016 18:51

Here's quite an interesting article:



You may have to copy the above web address into the the search bar - why it's not appearing in blue i don't know.

[pvb] 29/7/2016 21:19

(Remember we need substantive dispatchable generation, which rules out almost every 'green' idea).

But not all ex Grid people think it is quite that simple: