National Grid Share Discussion Threads

[tonio] 19/6/2015 18:06

Not a bad article today from Fraser Nelson:


A concern for me about NG is that although it can of course provide the infrastructure to transmit electricity from any energy source, the capital cost is huge and if the source can't provide the output to fund it, you can jack up the electricity unit cost to the consumer directly, or fund it indirectly by government subsidy - but it has to be paid. If it doesn't affect the share price of NG (a big if) it will still make our exports more expensive - and as a trading nation that's not good. The example quoted in the article of the response of heavy energy users in Germany to their green levies is surely a salutary one.

[m100] 17/6/2015 23:08

Why UtyINV, did something just happen, or is about to happen, or will happen just after the AGM?

[utyinv] 17/6/2015 19:05

The AG|M on 21st July could be very interesting....

[deanforester] 17/6/2015 17:30

There is also the argument between the climate change enthusiasts and those who claim that temperature records have been, and continue to be, fiddled. The only reliable data come from locations where the same instruments have provided the data, from locations which have been unaffected by changes in the local environment. The "City effect" is very significant.

[stevie blunder] 17/6/2015 12:17

Dr Biotech, You are quite right.
The argument is however not between those who believe and disbelieve in greenhouse gas theory.

Rather it is between those who believe in large positive water vapour feedbacks and those who think such feedbacks are small.

CO2 on its own doesn't really move the dial much on global temperature : a doubling of CO2 leads only to a 1.2 deg temperature rise.

The holy grail of climate science is to nail down a figure for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, defined as the climate response to a doubling of CO2. The IPCC puts ECS at 1.5-4.5 degC. with no "best" value. Richard Lindzen comes up with 0.7 degC.
Therein lies the disagreement.

Looks to me like there is room for discussion, but such conversations usually end with one side shouting "Denier" and the other "Alarmist". Pity it is all so politicised.

[dr biotech] 17/6/2015 11:36

Its funny looking back through here and that one of the arguments against GW is that the consensus is wrong, and the Aether was a previous example of this. Its an argument I see against Evolution by creationists all the time. Science has moved on somewhat in both scale and understanding since the 18th century, though some would like us to return there. To think that we can pump huge volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere without at least pushing the equilibrium a little is really putting your head in the sand.

Nuclear fusion would be great. Think that we are someway off that though, but whatever the method of generating it, it will always need to be transported through the grid.

[1carus] 16/6/2015 19:51

On one of the Brian Cox's soft science programs he explored the renewable energy equation on a global scale, the outcome was that the world is kidding itself. I think current world consumption is 7TW. With Asia growing and the population getting more energy hungry - upto western world usage rates, I think he said the requirement will double in the next 10-20 years. Simply that was not possible with solar and wind. ( Note that we are trying to exchange dirty for clean which does not add to the total) His point was that we need to spend more on developing fusion reactors, the world spend on it is pitiful. No matter what we do in the west we are not going to control emissions and the demand cant be met by clean energy. The UK has almost unlimited dirty old coal resource, and we will turn back to it when everything else is exhausted and it becomes cost effective to mine it.

Wherever the energy comes from 'the grid' will supply it, so for me this share is a keeper.

[jasperthemonkeygod] 16/6/2015 14:09

these codes 1-6 etc have been abolished

[m100] 16/6/2015 14:00

It could be a good move although the vast quantities of solar on German roofs is seriously distorting the load curve, mopping up lots of subsidy that someone else has to pay for, and inflating energy prices for domestic consumers to the 2nd highest in the EU after Denmark.



Sizing, designing and constructing houses properly, to last at least 100 years with near zero external maintenance, and genuinely insulating them way in excess of what is the current norm must be a priority before any solar panel should be considered.

With the average household electrical consumption equating to something around a 500W standing load, add human occupancy and solar gain through sensibly sized and positioned windows, amd it should be enough to keep a house comfortable all year round, throughout much of the UK, without much space heating being required.

UK housing stock that should never have been built or should have been knocked down years ago continues to have shocking thermal performance and they are often the ones covered in solar panels raking in vast subsidy payments.

Rather than Code 6 housing being a cutting edge thing, it really should be the norm. Design for the future, not the past.

[neddo] 16/6/2015 12:40

all new buildings should have solar installed in the build?

[blueledge2] 15/6/2015 21:52

I will be much changed in 35 years that's for sure. And I will require very little heating.

[redartbmud] 15/6/2015 20:38

Gas or electricity, it doesn't matter. The Grid will move it.

[blueledge2] 15/6/2015 20:30

My point was. I found it interesting that the latest storage systems have the ability to turn electricity into gas for use in the gas network.

[pvb] 15/6/2015 17:49

I still do not understand the theory behind greenhouse gasses.
can 200 ppm give a greenhouse effect.

It's now more than 400ppm.



Greenhouses I have seen do not work if there are a few glass panes missing

That's because hot air in the greenhouse escapes through the broken window - by convection. The Earth isn't a "greenhouse", the hot atmosphere cannot escape via a broken window - fortunately for us!

Sigh! I thought this was the National Grid thread. :-(

There is already more that one GW/Climate Change thread on ADVFN. All tastes are catered for. ;-)

[m100] 15/6/2015 13:31

Even if we do have large amounts of gas in shale then IMHO the very worst thing we can do is burn it at around 50-60% efficiency in CCGT power stations or export it to Europe for what will be a short term fix and a bit of short term private sector profit.

Hydrocarbons, particularly ones liquid at or close to room temperatures like oil are way too useful for things like air and ground transport. Gas is the prime candidate for space heating in the home where, with oversized radiators and low return temperatures it's possible to achieve 80-90% efficiency.

Leaving the majority of UK gas it in the ground for future generations is IMHO a far better solution. Moving towards 100% nuclear over the next 40 years or so is my preferred option and has been for a while now, but without putting the whole thing in an arms length non profit government financed corporation it's never going to happen. With the current government or any we are likely to see it's even less likely. Why do something for your country that has a positive impact for hundreds of years when you can do something for your mates from Eton and get even more rich right now? Subsidised intermittent renewables continue to very seriously disturb the market for reliable sources of energy, ones that work in the depths of winter, at night, with blocking highs across the UK or Europe, where wholesale gas prices are soaring or plummeting by the month.

But regardless of what happens in terms of fracking it will probably have very little impact on Grid. Most fracked gas will be burnt off for maximum generating profit as close to the source and also as fast as possible. We might get a short term dip in energy prices lasting less than a generation and then we are right back to where we are now. I doubt much fracked gas will even see Grids gas network.

I also have doubts about the expansion* in the NG electricity asset base other than the increase in value from one for one replacements, there may be system reinforcements as existing power stations close and some more interconnectors, hopefully where some, if not all will be held as a long term revenue producing asset. The system loadings look set to continue to fall year on year as the economy continues along a similar path to the past 10 years and energy efficiency improves across all sectors or as is more likely, energy intensive industry is moved overseas. Without long term stable electricity prices, that only nuclear can truly provide, there will be no real transition to a low carbon economy in the UK, we will continue to burn our own resources and while we can afford it, burn imported gas, coal and biomass. All the while muddling along with wind turbine this solar that tidal the other, and tesla batteries, with dire housing stock from every era since tudor times to the ramshackle stuff built today that leak heat at an enormous rate.

It's not a bright green future, it's a very dark cold dank one, a landscape littered with endless wind turbines, with solar panels powering street lights lights by day and SFA at night and winters where pensioners continue to freeze to death, as the UK economy is systematically destroyed.

* From either a slow progression or a gone green scenario

hxxp://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Gas/OperationalInfo/TBE/Future+Energy+Scenarios

[hiddendepths] 15/6/2015 08:44

The world needs gas in the first place to back out coal, and then probably oil too (look at VLS's technology for a start). Gas is by far the cleanest of the fossil fuels and is the only sensible bridge between a coal/oil society and the new world of solar coupled with efficient batteries. In a decade or two, the gas bridge will have run its course and the switch to efficient solar and power storage will take place in a rush.

It is fortunate for us Brits that we have massive gas resources locked up in shale. However the ignorant greenies and NIMBY's now seem to have widespread support in blocking this relatively clean alternative. As things stand, more solar and wind generation implies more coal burning and more pollution than using gas from shale, the exploitation of which is far less risky than its opponents apparently believe. It's a shame that that factlet is so little known or understood by the public at large.

It is to my mind ironic that the green brigade are pushing hard for increasing pollution and a substantially higher energy price. How can one resist?

[blueledge2] 14/6/2015 12:39

Pierre
I agree with much of what you say. But times are changing. As storage systems and batteries improve it makes more sense to use the fusion reactor in the sky.

[careful] 14/6/2015 08:30

I still do not understand the theory behind greenhouse gasses.
can 200 ppm give a greenhouse effect.
Greenhouses I have seen do not work if there are a few glass panes missing.

[gbb483] 14/6/2015 08:02

The worst greenhouse gas is water vapour - which the green lobby turn a blind eye to.

[pierre oreilly] 13/6/2015 22:46

Blueledge, you are welcome to your opinions on fossil fuels, but please don't make an inference that those who don't share your opinion are somehow irresponsible.

Much of the world needs fossil fuels to drag them out of poverty and, like it or not, that's what they are going to use. Maybe if you didn't already have the considerable benefits fossil fuels have brought us over the last 100 years and were still scratching a meagre living without many of the basics we take for granted you too may hold a different opinion.

Even if German achieved its 80% aim (something i thought they were about to drop) it would make virtually no difference whatsoever to global co2 emissions, if that is what you are worried about. And if the Uk joined them - again, virtually no difference.

[blueledge2] 13/6/2015 22:08

Maybe we should all have a vested interest in the demise of fossil fuels and be more responsible. Germany plans to be 80% green energy by 2020 and are much more heavily into this storage system technology than the UK is.

[careful] 13/6/2015 19:36

even a single aero engine can produce about 50mw of electric power driving an alternator.
quite good on emissions also, using best technology.
they run for decades and need very little attention.

the energy required to produce these plants compared to the energy produced over their life is negligible.
the above article is nonsense, written by those with a vested interest in the demise of fossil fuels.
lots of cushy research money, government subsidies and tax payers cash up for grabs.

if you want energy storage, how about a flywheel, been around for centuries.

[blueledge2] 13/6/2015 18:26

Stevie
The really interesting thing I thought was the ability to turn electricity into gas which could be fed into the gas grid.