National Grid Share Discussion Threads

[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:

[utyinv] 29/7/2016 15:10

its obvious the MM's want your shares so that they can take advantage of the special divi in Feb / March.

BTW the rumour / idea that Grid was thinking of buying a US utility has since been dropped. Depending on the price of the sale, estimated as £5.6B (51% of £11B business)then debt will have to be re-paid for that element of the business being disposed (approx £2.6B) leaving £3B to be returned to shareholders. Sir Peter (Chairman) advised at the AGM that the proceeds of the sale less debt will be returned to shareholders either through a special divi or share buy back or a mixture of both. However, if cash is returned to shareholders there will be a share consolidation X for Y so to speak.

[pierre oreilly] 29/7/2016 11:05

The crying shame over Nukes is that until a few decades ago we were the world leaders in that technology, with plenty of sought after uni nuclear engineering courses to maintain that leadership. Then we threw it all away, withdrew virtually all courses and became dependent on others for the nuclear expertise we, and the rest of the world, now needs.

[m100] 29/7/2016 10:50

While it is correct that this design as such has not achieved operational
status the basics are effectively the same as any other PWR. So I'd not call 3.2GW of generation capable of delivering >25TWh per annum for up to 60 years at a strike price of £92.50/MWh as being a white elephant. Compared to intermittent none dispatchable supply from offshore wind turbines at a strike price of £150, or onshore wind turbines at a strike price of £70, or solar panels at a strike price of £80 (the latter agreed but unbuilt as uneconomic) it is an absolute bargain. Even cheaper would have been half a dozen more to the design of Sizewell B, built as a follow on during the 1990's.

What is clear is EdF is betting the entire company on this, it can possibly do that because it is being bankrolled by the French government who are proposing a share issue. Quite how the French government can continue to do this when energy markets in the EU should have been divested from the state and fully opened up over a decade ago is anyones guess. On top of that the existing reactor base in France is aging rapidly, the large expansion through the 1970's and 1980's means a huge investment programme will be needed in the coming decades.

If approval of the design is granted by the UK regulatory body and construction actually commences then it opens up the market for this design in export markets. Without this stamp of approval the design is near worthless. But there are some who maintain the export market is non existent when other countries such as South Korea can already build and deliver to time and cost operational plant at a very significant discount to EdF/ Areva.

The impact of delays in HPC on NG's UK asset base is IMHO relatively insignificant. While the Hinkley Point C connection and transmission infrastructure would be the first widescale use of the new folded tower design the infrastructure for the connection of the new nuclear site at Wylfa and particularly at Sellafield would both be considerably more complex and valuable in asset value terms.

For renewables connection the Western HVDC connector, a joint NG venture with Scottish Power (capacity 2.2GW, circa 250 miles mainly underwater) is adding half a billion on NG's asset value this year.