Explain this

[Beelbeebub]

So this morning (Sunday 25 May) the wind is blowing, the sun is shining and nearly 70% of our electrifty is coming from renewables.

 

But the wholesale price will be set by the 3GW of gas that is being produced.

 

Fine, that's just how it is.

 

But we are also currently exporting 5GW of electricity.

So if we just exported 2GW we could burn no gas and get cheaper electricity?

 

If you look at the generation mix graphs you can see that we seem to be constantly burning gas even though we have enough generation for demand (and even export). 

 

The gas portion holds at a steady 3GW-ish.

 

I get we need to keep gas plants up and spinning even in periods of plentiful renewables just in case we get a fault or the wind unexpectedly dies or whatever and they have to step in rapidly.

 

But in that case is the Dutch auction system really a good way to price electricity?

 

Surely it wouod be better for gas plants to be in their own separate silo as a "backup" generator with costs spread equally across the year as with other infrastructure like substations and cables.

[ProDave]

The whole "system" is rigged.  We keep getting told if we have more renewable the price will come down.  Not with the present pricing scheme it will not.  And predictions are we will still be burning some gas for electricity in 50 years time, so that will still set the price unless the method of setting the price changes.

 

Do you ever get the feeling we are being fed a whole pack of lies?

[MikeSharp01]

It's mad but breaking the link is tougher than most people think. It's all about the 2nd and 3rd order consequences (consequences of consequences and the consequences of those consequences). You can read more here: https://ecotricitysmartgrid.co.uk/news-and-views/breaking-the-uk-power-price-linkage-to-gas/ 

[ProDave]

Something has to change, or those that telling us more renewable = cheaper prices needs to admit that under the present scheme, they are telling the public a pack of lies.  It is the untruth we are being told that really irritates me.

[nod]

23 minutes ago, ProDave said:

The whole "system" is rigged.  We keep getting told if we have more renewable the price will come down.  Not with the present pricing scheme it will not.  And predictions are we will still be burning some gas for electricity in 50 years time, so that will still set the price unless the method of setting the price changes.

 

Do you ever get the feeling we are being fed a whole pack of lies?

I 100% agree 

[Dillsue]

NESO says sustainable renewables accounted for 37% of UK 2024 generation(wind, solar and hydro) with very expensive nuclear, gas and imports accounting for the bulk of the remainder. Seems to me we've got a long way to go before renewables could drive some savings??

[JohnMo]

22 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

we've got a long way to go before renewables could drive some savings?

Except in Scotland - today we are being provided by 100% wind, but at gas prices 

[ProDave]

1 minute ago, JohnMo said:

Except in Scotland - today we are being provided by 100% wind, but at gas prices 

Time for Scotland to have it's own pricing, and electricity exported over the border metered?

[Dillsue]

45 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Time for Scotland to have it's own pricing, and electricity exported over the border metered?

I'm sure the overseas investors will sort out a fair price for those north of the border:)

 

I had a similar conversation with our lodger over why he can't have cheap/free electric from the excess PV I've invested £1000s to generate

[JohnMo]

8 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

had a similar conversation with our lodger over why he can't have cheap/free electric from the excess PV I've invested £1000s to generate

Because he has taken possession of your house, and everything in it for a monthly fee. So why shouldn't he?

 

Bit like saying I spent loads of money on the heating system, so you can't use it to heat the house. I've diverted the pipes to next door where I live.

 

So why should you have control over the electric supplies in the house you rent out? It's nothing to do with you, you may own it, but while you take a rent it's not yours.

 

If I was living there I would just turn the inverter off. Then say you cannot enter.

[SteamyTea]

3 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

It's all about the 2nd and 3rd order consequences (consequences of consequences and the consequences of those consequences).

I seem to remember they call that N+1, N+2... conditions.

An N+1 is easily dealt with, N+2 is a major problem (had one a while back when a gas plant went off line, causing a Windfarm to be disconnected, and the traffic lights in London to stop working).

N+3 is catastrophic.

 

Then repowering the grid is a major problem.

Renewables are easier to reconnect than large gas and nuclear.

[saveasteading]

49 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Renewables are easier to reconnect than large gas and nuclear.

Did I ever tell you BHers about when i was looking down a deep hole at the side of a new motorway? Digging for a huge traffic sign foundation  6x3x2m deep or so..  A white van screamed up and a man jumped out waving and shouting "stop".

He knew there was a vital telephone cable to the nearby power station.....it just wasn't on any drawing. Apparently the power stn would have shut down.

I can't remember if we found it.....I would remember if it was broken.  I think hand digging with rubber shovels must have been involved.

 

If it is avoided is that N ??  or   nothing at all?

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

 

If it is avoided is that N ??  or   nothing at all

I can't remember, but if N means normal (no faults) and the number is the number of faults, then it makes sense.

 

Then I studies Environmental Economics (was very interesting), part of the course was valuing nature. There are a number of ways to do this, one is to just put a price in things i.e. a tiger is worth more than a worm.

Another way us to ask people how much they are willing to pay to save/see something.

Another is how much they want to be paid for the absence of something.

 

So there is a lot of chat about the high price of electricity, and how we are all being lied to.

But, as @Dillsue points out, not much chat about the people who pay for an incredibly reliable service, via their investment.

 

So @ProDave, how much compensation would you like to not have mains electricity?

And where should that cash come from?

[saveasteading]

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

to just put a price in things i.e. a tiger is worth more than a worm

What is a human worth? That is how we (society)  decide whether to improve a road junction / other hazard.

It isn't mentioned openly as the general public would be appalled / disgusted while having no alternative.

6 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

but if N means normal (no faults)

A drawing not showing a cable could be called a fault perhaps. Trusing it and not scanning progressively "just in case" could be fault 2. Breaking it fault 3. Station shuts down is 4.

This seems inflationary so perhaps some are combined.

[Beelbeebub]

Saw this over on bluesky

 

"Right now, mainland Britain has got almost enough wind and solar power to meet our electricity demand. Add in the power from nuclear and a small dash of gas (used solely to maintain enough mechanical inertia to stabilise the grid) and we are having to export 4.4GW to neighbouring countries. The need for that safety inertia will fall away with new renewable sites like Dogger Bank, whose inverters are capable of ‘grid forming’ as opposed to merely grid following…

... What this means is that their power electronics are designed to mimic the frequency and voltage stabilisation the the old spinning tire w turbines produce mechanically. Massive batteries being built around the country will do the same. That means that soon, on a day like this, we will see the grid run exclusively on renewables and nuclear."

 

I did wonder about the various takes that we need fossil fuel generators for grid stability.

 

Yes the spinning inertia helps stabilise the frequency but only so far as a spinning energy store will drop frequency as it delivers power. Once it slows down from 50hz to 48.8hz (or whatever the cutout is) it has to disconnect. So only a small portion of the power is available.

 

Whereas inverter systems can theoretically provide 50hz for their entire power delivery.

Edited Sunday at 15:10 by Beelbeebub

[MikeSharp01]

13 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

A drawing not showing a cable could be called a fault perhaps. Trusing it and not scanning progressively "just in case" could be fault 2. Breaking it fault 3. Station shuts down is 4.

This seems inflationary so perhaps some are combined.

The problem with N+ consequences is that they are often, usually probably, unintended because nobody looked at / for them at the outset and in the end you can go to far in trying find and manage them that the cost of doing anything closes everything down. This is the same at the other end of the problem with requirements complexity. So if you want a new way to buy / sell electricity you will set out a few requirements, these will have relationships with one another (interdependency)  and you will want traceability as well. You are now looking at the N+ consequences of many interrelationships in the requirements which makes life difficult so most people don't go much beyond N+1.

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

What is a human worth

Depends if you ask a Brexiteer/Reformer/Tory or a Liberal Democratic/Green.

Usually worked out on the earning potential and number of years of life left (with some adjustment at the extremes).

Worth remembering that compensation is purely to cover costs, it is not to do with hurt and suffering.

21 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

A drawing not showing a cable could be called a fault perhaps

Probably not as a drawing not showing something is not likely to cause a fault in normal operations.

In your example of the hole, there should have been a due diligence check. An old girlfriend of mine set up a company that logged all the types and positions of buried services. She sold it to GE, took the money and ran.

[ProDave]

43 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

 

So @ProDave, how much compensation would you like to not have mains electricity?

And where should that cash come from?

That is a silly "solution"

 

The problem we have at the moment, is wind farms etc build on the basis of a cost price and they bid that plus a profit.  But they end up getting paid the gas price and making a much larger profit.  Anyone can see this is bonkers.

 

All we need is a system where the generators make a sensible profit and the price the consumer pays is fair.

 

There is probably a good argument for nationalising the gas back stop generators and they can be stopped and started as required without the threat of the operators shutting them down for good if they don't have their cake and eat it.

[SteamyTea]

27 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

used solely to maintain enough mechanical inertia to stabilise the grid

Hydro is an inertial system, with pumped hydro being capable of very quick deployment if things get really bad (pumped us probably being recharged at the moment).

 

The exporting and importing 'quirk' could well be contractural.

We have a centrally managed grid system, it isn't left to its own devices with the generation companies switching power in and out willy nilly when it suits them.

 

Near my old college was a large substation, I seem to remember that there were large flywheels and capacitors there to help with frequency.

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, ProDave said:

That is a silly "solution"

No it isn't.

It is how business works. Power delivery is a business after all.

 

You are now virtually retired, and put a value on your free time (not earning) higher that the value of working.

That was not the case 40 years ago when you were starting off as an electrician.

So not silly at all. Most if use put a value in things, even if we don't realise it at the time.

[Alan Ambrose]

I thought the gas peakers were there precisely because they could be started and stopped quickly.

[SteamyTea]

26 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

I thought the gas peakers were there precisely because they could be started and stopped quickly.

It is more complicated than that.

While CCGT can be ramped up quite quickly (minutes usually), they are not instantaneous.

Battery storage is the quickest, and has the advantage of having low standing losses.

Diesel ICE generators are similar.

Thermal biomass and nuclear are probably the slowest.

Pumped storage is fast to get online, but needs management at a higher level.

 

Wind and solar, by their distributed nature and modular design, are useful for balancing as it is easy to turn of small amounts i.e. 1 MW at a time.

They do have network constraints quite often, which the older thermal plants tend not to have.

 

[Dillsue]

4 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Because he has taken possession of your house, and everything in it for a monthly fee. So why shouldn't he?

 

Bit like saying I spent loads of money on the heating system, so you can't use it to heat the house. I've diverted the pipes to next door where I live.

 

So why should you have control over the electric supplies in the house you rent out? It's nothing to do with you, you may own it, but while you take a rent it's not yours.

 

If I was living there I would just turn the inverter off. Then say you cannot enter.

He's a lodger not a tenant. He rents an annexe and we're in the main house.

 

When I explained the investment I'd made he was OK paying the full import rate even when he was drawing on our surplus PV......best lodger going:)

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Dillsue said:

He rents an annexe and we're in the main house

Had a few lodgers that I should have locked up in the shed as well.

[Dillsue]

2 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

I thought the gas peakers were there precisely because they could be started and stopped quickly.

When they know in advance then that's probably true. If they're asked to be on standby then it's probably also true. If they need to start unexpectedly then it can take a long time. The turbines have to be gently preheated with steam which I beleive takes hours or maybe days if starting from stone cold. Before you can pre heat you have to get a boiler house up and running to provide the steam for preheating

 

Even if you only want gas generation for an hour or two at tea time each day there's a full team at work round the clock and boiler house running 24/7 keeping the turbines warm for the couple of hours they're needed