| General > General Technical Chat |
| UK power grid situation!! |
| << < (22/28) > >> |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: G7PSK on December 13, 2022, 10:32:02 am --- --- Quote from: tggzzz --- The "global warming thing" is that extreme weather will become more frequent. The "wind is always blowing somewhere" is a longstanding mantra od the idiot green fringe that also measures energy in GW. It is easily disprovable, courtesy of gridwatch. I took a year's wind production and plotted the CDF. As a rule of thumb in the UK, if the peak wind output is X GW, then the wind output will be below X% for X% of the time. Example: if the peak output is 10GW, then it will be 0.1GW or less for 1% of the year, i.e. 3 days. --- End quote --- The number of foggy days is fewer than it was in the 60's and 70's although over the past few years it is increasing again proving if anything that the weather is variable, if the weather is really going to get more extreme that means winds will be higher and wind turbines shut down in high wind. If we really want net zero carbon and have enough energy for modern life the money being put into wind and solar especialy ther subsidies should be diverted to fusion. --- End quote --- The clean air act and less particulate pollution is why fog is less common. Now when we get high pressure in winter, it's more likely to give clear, sunny weather, rather than fog. It might also be why the the average winter temperature has increased slightly more, than summer. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest the prevalence of fog is increasing again. There's been quite a few foggy days this winter and the last, but that's not enough to suggest a trend. |
| tom66:
Relying on fusion to solve the zero carbon problem is just as foolish as relying on carbon capture to make fossil fuels OK to use. Fusion has not yet returned a positive result, the longest true fusion reaction was about 30 seconds and still did not return more energy than it required. YES, it might be possible in the future and we absolutely should throw more money at it, but in the meantime wind turbines are zero carbon, efficient, and cheap to build, so we should continue to build them. |
| tom66:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on December 13, 2022, 09:26:04 am ---The "global warming thing" is that extreme weather will become more frequent. The "wind is always blowing somewhere" is a longstanding mantra od the idiot green fringe that also measures energy in GW. It is easily disprovable, courtesy of gridwatch. I took a year's wind production and plotted the CDF. As a rule of thumb in the UK, if the peak wind output is X GW, then the wind output will be below X% for X% of the time. Example: if the peak output is 10GW, then it will be 0.1GW or less for 1% of the year, i.e. 3 days. --- End quote --- I don't know if anyone is proposing wind ex storage as a viable grid supply - if they are then you are quite right to shout at them. The reality is that a purely wind powered grid would require some form of storage. Batteries are very unlikely to be viable, unless there is a massive advance in the technology (like 2-3 orders of magnitude). So we have to look at chemical storage, as we know that already works, e.g. most gas storage is done underground in large natural salt caverns, or by pumping gas back into expired gas fields. There are already some demonstration plants in operation that are producing hydrogen from excess renewable energy. I would like to see what your math looks like it you take the current ~25GW of wind capacity, increase it to ~100GW (which is likely to be where we are in about 15 years), but add storage of about 50TWh (~10 days) into the grid. There are a few papers on this concept, it is known as 'renewable superpower' (a bit of a marketing term but the idea is to overbuild renewables to overcome their intermittency). So your 0.1GW now becomes 0.4GW, still not enough to run the country right, but you can use hydrogen or natural gas instead, and it's got a very small carbon footprint (hydrogen zero, natural gas only due to fugitive emissions). The best thing about this concept is, if you do it with synfuel natural gas, you don't even need to renew the power plants. If you do it with hydrogen, you'll need to replace parts of natural gas plants, or build new fuel cell plants, to convert it into electricity, but the overall efficiency is probably a little higher. You can then also supply the gas into homes to run heating (with homes steadily moving over to heat pumps). The current storage capacity in the UK is ca. 5 bcm of natural gas, which is about 50 TWh, and 70% of this is in one facility (Rough natural gas field.) At a consumption of 45GW, assuming 40% CCGT efficiency (real drawdown ~100GW), that capacity alone is enough for 500 hours of electricity production. You'd need to add heating and industrial demand of gas to that too, so we'd likely need to roughly double the current storage capacity to make this viable. Fuel cell plants and more wind make it ever more viable. The beauty of this route is that it allows you to slowly transition to renewables without great risk. Edit - corrected typo |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: tom66 on December 13, 2022, 11:30:49 am --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on December 13, 2022, 09:26:04 am ---The "global warming thing" is that extreme weather will become more frequent. The "wind is always blowing somewhere" is a longstanding mantra od the idiot green fringe that also measures energy in GW. It is easily disprovable, courtesy of gridwatch. I took a year's wind production and plotted the CDF. As a rule of thumb in the UK, if the peak wind output is X GW, then the wind output will be below X% for X% of the time. Example: if the peak output is 10GW, then it will be 0.1GW or less for 1% of the year, i.e. 3 days. --- End quote --- I don't know if anyone is proposing wind ex storage as a viable grid supply - if they are then you are quite right to shout at them. The reality is that a purely wind powered grid would require some form of storage. --- End quote --- I don't know what "wind ex storage" is. All intermittent (i.e. non-dispatchable) sources imply storage is required. --- Quote ---I would like to see what your math looks like it you take the current ~25GW of wind capacity, increase it to ~100GW (which is likely to be where we are in about 15 years), but add storage of about 50TWh (~10 days) into the grid. There are a few papers on this concept, it is known as 'renewable superpower' (a bit of a marketing term but the idea is to overbuild renewables to overcome their intermittency). So your 0.1GW now becomes 0.4GW, still not enough to run the country right, but you can use hydrogen or natural gas instead, and it's got a very small carbon footprint (hydrogen zero, natural gas only due to fugitive emissions). The best thing about this concept is, if you do it with synfuel natural gas, you don't even need to renew the power plants. If you do it with hydrogen, you'll need to replace parts of natural gas plants, or build new fuel cell plants, to convert it into electricity, but the overall efficiency is probably a little higher. You can then also supply the gas into homes to run heating (with homes steadily moving over to heat pumps). --- End quote --- I'm not going to poorly duplicate what is freely available elsewhere. Best source, lauded by everybody from "big energy" to "hardcore greens" and politicians is https://withouthotair.com/ Available as a pdf, if you prefer. * This remarkable book sets out, with enormous clarity and objectivity, the various alternative low-carbon pathways that are open to us. Sir David King FRS Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, 2000-08 * For anyone with influence on energy policy, whether in government, business or a campaign group, this book should be compulsory reading. Tony Juniper Former Executive Director, Friends of the Earth * At last a book that comprehensively reveals the true facts about sustainable energy in a form that is both highly readable and entertaining. Robert Sansom EDF Energy * ... a really valuable contribution ... The author uses a potent mixture of arithmetic and common sense to dispel some myths and slay some sacred cows. Lord Oxburgh KBE FRS Former Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell * Engagingly written, packed with useful information, and refreshingly factual. Peter Ainsworth MP Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs * Everyone who cares about the survival of humanity should read this book. ... I've been reading books about energy and climate change for the last 20 years, and this is the best yet. Stephen Tindale Co-founder, Climate Answers and former Executive Director of Greenpeace UK. * It is a fabulous, witty, no-nonsense, valuable piece of work, and I am busy sending it to everyone I know. Matthew Sullivan Carbon Advice Group Plc He outlines the basic physics, chemistry and biology of energy generation and energy consumption. He presents half a dozen plausible alternatives, without preferring any of them. Key concept: numbers not adjectives, and make the arithmetic add up. --- Quote ---The current storage capacity in the UK is ca. 5 bcm of natural gas, which is about 50 TWh, and 70% of this is in one facility (Rough natural gas field.) At a consumption of 45GW, assuming 40% CCGT efficiency (real drawdown ~100GW), that capacity alone is enough for 500 hours of electricity production. You'd need to add heating and industrial demand of gas to that too, so we'd likely need to roughly double the current storage capacity to make this viable. Fuel cell plants and more wind make it ever more viable. The beauty of this route is that it allows you to slowly transition to renewables without great risk. --- End quote --- That's misleading #1: Rough is (?can?) only operating at 20% of capacity, thus reducing the 50TWh to 22TWh. Quite a difference. That's misleading #2: wind on its own is not a solution. For every 1W of installed wind power, you also need an extra 1W of dispatchable power - even though you won't need it most of the time. Storage is the key, and is now more of an issue than generation. Any entity that comes up with a practical way of grid scale energy storage will become as rich as Croesus. Currently the only practical solution is pumped storage hydropower, and the capacity for that is very limited in the UK. Nobody should present half-baked proposals unless they explain how they fit in the physical world outlined by MacKay. |
| tom66:
Wind ex storage would be a grid powered by wind power with negligible amounts of storage, assuming that it will always be windy. What's hard to understand about that? Anyway, no one sensible is proposing that as a solution. Every fully renewable proposal that has some thought behind it includes the need for storage. I have read nearly all of MacKay's book; I wouldn't be proposing what I suggest if it wasn't somewhat feasible. But: MacKay died in 2016, and the book was last updated in ~2014. In that time, available technology has changed, and wind power has been constructed at an immense scale. For instance, wind systems are now well integrated into the grid. NG/ESO understand when wind won't be available and when to have additional supply on hand. Constructing wind power in the sea is far more feasible and we can put 20MW offshore turbines up now. A wind farm can be commissioned in a matter of months, far quicker than any nuclear or gas power plant, but it can generate comparable power to one in good conditions. In his book, MacKay provided limited analysis of off-shore wind, which a 100GW-sized wind grid would consist mostly of (he also did not provide any analysis of new technologies, such as floating off-shore, or newer turbines that can sink into 100m deep trenches). Onshore wind is worth constructing because it is *so cheap* to build, and cheaper than offshore to maintain, but it carries a political price and therefore we're unlikely to see much new developments here. It's less effective and less consistent than offshore, but storage (and combining it with offshore) makes that kind of thing less important. (That forecast is a little inaccurate - the UK already has 25GW of wind capacity and it's ~2023.) You would not need significantly more dispatchable power. You would simply maintain and replace as necessary the existing natural gas power generation equipment, which is normally enough with nuclear to support the grid under most conditions without wind. That we are burning a few percent of coal now shows we don't quite have enough, but we are not that far behind, and constructing at a normal pace is sufficient to keep up with additional demands like EVs, heat pumps etc., and there will also be a few new nuclear reactors coming online in the 2030's. Note that a major benefit to having the renewable super-power would be that electricity in certain conditions would have a very low price; consumers would be heavily incentivised to buy it at certain times to e.g. charge their car or home batteries, or shift behaviour of large industries, shift patterns for aluminium smelters already avoid operation in the 4-7pm peak, but this would change to be based on forecast wind and grid availability. Rough may be only used at 20% currently, but it will be fully reopening soon; it's a crying shame this government has inadequately funded storage. But hopefully Russia's actions show that is increasingly necessary to maintain energy independence which wind power and storage enables. Anyway, I said we'd need more storage, this is not the hard part. There are lots of depleted gas fields, and there will be more come the end of North Sea gas and oil. I'm sure we can figure that bit out. The difficult bit is the syngas stuff, that is the new infrastructure that needs to be built en-masse. Such plants would likely be located near to the terminus of existing wind power supply lines to reduce losses and costs. Also, we need considerable upgrades to the 400kV supergrid, as at present the Scottish wind power supply is often limited by the two main 400kV lines feeding the rest of the UK. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |