Spain/Portugal blackout

[Mike]

4 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

How do 2012 prices relate to today's prices?

For active schemes, the Schemes Register (the 2nd link in my post above) lists the 2012 price (everything uses that as the baseline) & the current price. So Hinkley Point C is £89.5 / MWh at 2012 prices, but £127/MWh at current prices - so multiply by 1.42.

 

Which does suggest that they're using CPI, as @SteamyTea suggests.

[SteamyTea]

27 minutes ago, Mike said:

Which does suggest that they're using CPI, as @SteamyTea suggests

I did a quick search earlier on the government website, about CfD and they do use CPI, for the most part.

 

[BotusBuild]

My earlier point about electricity-gas price link should perhaps have been clarified to state that the UK would then not be hit so hard by changes in the gas wholesale price.

 

My argument is all academic because it would take this country too long to actually get a decent nuclear base load in place. Hinckley C was initially proposed in 1981, announced in 2010 with nuclear licence granted in 2012 - current project completion 2031. So 50 (expletive) years. Madness.

[ProDave]

53 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

My argument is all academic because it would take this country too long to actually get a decent nuclear base load in place. Hinckley C was initially proposed in 1981, announced in 2010 with nuclear licence granted in 2012 - current project completion 2031. So 50 (expletive) years. Madness.

Blame Mrs T.  It was under her watch we closed down the UKAEA and with that development of our home grown reactors which we used to build a lot quicker than that.

[SteamyTea]

42 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

earlier point about electricity-gas price link should perhaps have been clarified to state that the UK would then not be hit so hard by changes in the gas wholesale price

I wonder, Hinckley C is going to be produce about 20 TWh/year, at today's prices of £130/MWh.

Natural gas is about 80p/therm, or about £27.3/MWh.

Assume a thermal efficiency of 50%, that is still only a third of the nuclear price.

[Mike]

58 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Blame Mrs T.  It was under her watch we closed down the UKAEA

The UKAEA is still exists (though it's now focused on fusion); guessing you meant the breakup of the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board)?

 

While that wouldn't have helped, it was after Chernobyl (in 1986, coming 7 years after Three Mile Island in 1979) that most new nuclear power ground to a halt world-wide. Fukushima wasn't much of an encouragement either. If's only the recent focus on electrification that has lead to renewed interest in - or, rather, more successful lobbying by - the nuclear industry.

 

Edited Sunday at 15:24 by Mike

[BotusBuild]

The £130/MWh is the thing that makes Hinkley a white elephant IMHO

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

Chernobyl

 

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Three Mile Island

 

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Fukushima

Don't forget our 1957 contribution.

Windscale

 

 

 

[Mike]

BTW, did anyone notice the Severn Estuary Commission's recent recommendation that the Government should 'act now' to include tidal range energy in general, and a tidal lagoon in particular, in their policies?

 

https://www.severncommission.co.uk/commission-recommends-uk-government-act-now-to-harness-tidal-energy/

 

Edited Sunday at 15:25 by Mike

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Don't forget our 1957 contribution.

Windscale

I had - a good point!

[SteamyTea]

21 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

The £130/MWh is the thing that makes Hinkley a white elephant IMHO

It is the 20+ years of gobbling up £1bn/year and producing nothing that gets my goat.

20 years ago that would have bought a GW_p of wind turbines, they would be producing about 3 TWh/year. Then next year, 6 TWh, then 9 TWh....

By now, the money spent on Sinkley Hole would be producing 60 TWh/year, 3 times what Wankey Won't is not producing.

We could have stopped installing wind turbines, and assuming that another £10bn will be spent there (just to get rid of the rat infestation) and spent that on battery storage at £500,000/MWh, we would have 20 GWh of distributed storage.

And all that while Winkey Wank Hole is still not producing.

 

If I can do the above sums (which may be wrong, sitting in cafe in 15 minutes, it makes me wonder what complete (expletive deleted) allowed it to happen.

Not as if no one mentioned to them it was a white elephant.

Edited Sunday at 15:39 by SteamyTea

[saveasteading]

Do we know if the power imported constantly from France is listed here under imports or nuclear?

 

[Beelbeebub]

3 hours ago, ProDave said:

Blame Mrs T.  It was under her watch we closed down the UKAEA and with that development of our home grown reactors which we used to build a lot quicker than that.

Although, to be fair, our home grown AGR reactors were crap.

Edited Sunday at 17:37 by Beelbeebub

[SteamyTea]

26 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Do we know if the power imported constantly from France is listed here under imports or nuclear

As far as I know it is just as an import.

 

 

 

Just for a laugh here is the French grid data for the last week.

 

Edited Sunday at 17:44 by SteamyTea

[Beelbeebub]

28 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Do we know if the power imported constantly from France is listed here under imports or nuclear?

 

I think it comes under imports.

 

If you look here

 

https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live

 

Which comes from the same ultimate source it splits out imports by country and CO2

 

For example today...

 

 

The French imports are the 7.9%

 

And wind is nearly 40% of total and gas is that tiddly 12% (but sets the prices for the rest)

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

but sets the prices for the rest

Might be being set by pumped storage, batteries or nuclear, depends what the auction price was. Not enough of our generation is in the CfD system.

But it is totally barmy that after 3 years of primary energy volatility, we have not sorted this out. There must be some emergency laws that allows the contracts to be broken.

Edited Sunday at 17:56 by SteamyTea

[Beelbeebub]

14 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Might be being set by pumped storage, batteries or nuclear, depends epends e auction price was. Not enough of our generation is in the CfD system.

But it is totally barmy that after 3 years of primary energy volatility, we have not sorted this out. There must be some emergency laws thatallowss the contraccontracts to be brokents to be broken.

I think the stats are that gas is the price setter 98% of the time in the UK.

 

We seem to run it quite a lot of the time providing 1 or 2 Gw, so I assume as a balancing source.

 

 

[Dillsue]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

I think the stats are that gas is the price setter 98% of the time in the UK.

 

We seem to run it quite a lot of the time providing 1 or 2 Gw, so I assume as a balancing source.

 

 

Not sure gas generation over the year is quite that low?? Tapping through last years generation graph on Gridwatch suggests not.

 

Last year National Grid say gas did 26% but even though total gas generation is getting lower we need it to be there for when the wind doesn't blow or at half time in a big footy match apparently! Gov forecasts say gas is here to stay so I can't see the link between gas generation/standby costs and electricity prices being broken???https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675c0ca798302e574b915336/eep-report-2023-2050.pdf

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, Dillsue said:

Not sure gas generation over the year is quite that low?? Tapping through last years generation graph on Gridwatch suggests not.

 

Last year National Grid say gas did 26% but et n though total gas generation is getting lower we need it to be there for when the wind doesn't blow or at half time in a big footy match apparently! Gov forecasts say gas is here to stay so I can't see the link between gas generation/standby costs and electricity prices being broken???https://as/ats.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675c0ca798302e574b915336/eep-report-2023-2050.pdf

The report projects gas falling by around 60% from 

current ie 10% total annual.

 

As you say we will always need something for when wind and solar are a no go.

 

In the absence of lots more nuclear it will likely be gas.

 

But that's fine.  What we do need to do is stop gas being the price setter outside of the times when it is doing the majority.

 

Maybe if the price is set on gas (or whichever fuel) only if it exceeds a certain percentage. Essentially setting the price on the 90% (or whatever) generator not the 100%

 

So the expensive gas etc get paid, but everyone else gets a lower (but still higher than cost) price.

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

always need something for when wind and solar are a no go.

Apart from the reduced generation is predictable, we can use landfill gas to generation electricity. In  2020 it generated 3.2 TWh (365 MW).

If we separate our food waste better, that will improve, though I would like to see a LCA on it.

Power from sewage is another technology already in use, as are farm anaerobic digestion systems.

Add in some more small scale hydro, a very underused resource in the UK, and I think most of the gaps can be filled.

As much as no one likes the idea of usage control, much of it can be done behind the scenes i.e. turning off freezer in supermarkets for a couple of hours. 

Edited 18 hours ago by SteamyTea

[Beelbeebub]

If lots of properties had 5 or 10kWh batteries with maybe a 3-5kW inverter then alot of the peaks could probably be ironed out. It would give a pretty good load shedding option for when something catastrophic happened to the grid eg a major inter connector going down.

 

A 10kWh /55kW unit is pretty discreet these days and around about 5-7k installed.

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

If lots of properties had 5 or 10kWh batteries with maybe a 3-5kW inverter then alot of the peaks could probably be ironed out.

How large is 'lots'.

 

If you take the evening peak being in the region of 40 GWh (10 GW increase for 4 hours), that is 40,000,000 kWh, or close to 1 kWh per house.

But as that would be extremely expensive to install (this 2014 paper shows installing smart meters costs £215/household), probably in the region of £1500 for the first kWh, then around £500 per additional kWh), it would be much better to install at the local substation.  The advantage of that is better system reliability, monitoring and control, and that is before safety risks are considered.

Edited 16 hours ago by SteamyTea

[SteamyTea]

To show what I mean about using local substations, rather than individual houses to store energy, here is the current usage map from UK Power Networks for the SE of England.

 

 

Would be pretty pointless putting local storage into the green areas, and there really is not that much red and yellow.

[Beelbeebub]

All good points about the possibility of local substation store

 

The counter would be the tech for the home batt system is already here from multiple vendors

 

There aren't any planning or space issues.

 

The per house would be part funded by householders, probably the richer ones. The subsidy being maybe lower vat or some sort of rebate.  That rebate could be scaled for companies or technologies we deem worthy eg UK manufactured systems or new chemistries like sodium thus giving an industrial benefit.

 

The per house would give very good resilience against a Spain style blackout - plus alot will split "critical" circuits that are backed up (eg lights, freezers, comms) from non critical stuff like drivers or ev chargers to improve the runtime per stored kwh. This isn't easy for a substation system which woukd have to support people charging EVs, taking showers etc during a blackout.

 

The per house would also make peak shifting /shaving more of an individual choice rather than enforced from above.

 

[Roger440]

8 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

All good points about the possibility of local substation store

 

The counter would be the tech for the home batt system is already here from multiple vendors

 

There aren't any planning or space issues.

 

The per house would be part funded by householders, probably the richer ones. The subsidy being maybe lower vat or some sort of rebate.  That rebate could be scaled for companies or technologies we deem worthy eg UK manufactured systems or new chemistries like sodium thus giving an industrial benefit.

 

The per house would give very good resilience against a Spain style blackout - plus alot will split "critical" circuits that are backed up (eg lights, freezers, comms) from non critical stuff like drivers or ev chargers to improve the runtime per stored kwh. This isn't easy for a substation system which woukd have to support people charging EVs, taking showers etc during a blackout.

 

The per house would also make peak shifting /shaving more of an individual choice rather than enforced from above.

 

 

If its self funded, by, as you observe, the richer ones, it going to contribute bugger all in the scheme of things. Id not consider that to be "lots". 

 

Steany idea makes much more sense, and, id suggest, more likely.