Atomic energy body proposes fusion framework to manage British energy grids Energy grid operators could increase the reliability of their networks by adopting software designed to manage nuclear fusion experiments, claims the UK's Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). According to the organization, operators are facing challenges from the changing nature of the electric power sector in the UK, with …
Having worked at UKAEA Culham 2013-18, I know these guys have the best control engineers in the business, and if anyone can develop a system to stabilise our worryingly wobbly power system, they can.
Whenever I look at the UK grid frequency, it often looks rather "bi-modal". That's the "buttocks distribution" visible in the histogram on the bottom right. This means it's continually oscillating around its 50Hz control point and rarely staying very close to it. It's a classic problem in control of non-linear systems, and it's the sort of thing those UKAEA boffins ought to be able to sort out. (The EU grid doesn't have this problem, apparently. It stays pretty much bang-on 50Hz, but it's a much bigger grid with a much higher "minimum inertia")
If the grid ever goes too high or too low frequency for too long, or changes frequency too quickly, it can cause parts of the system to trip offline, leading to a cascade failure and a large-scale blackout. This problem is made worse when there's a lot of wind and solar energy on the grid, because there is no grid-synchronous spinning turbine to provide inertia (wind turbines are not usually grid-synchronous - they run at variable speed for max efficiency). Just like an engine without a flywheel, it can stall or spin out of control very easily.
We can use batteries for frequency response instead of flywheel stored energy - but if the power electronics and control systems are too slow to respond, they can make the situation worse, rather than better. Hopefully this advanced control system can fix that. (i'm in an optimistic mood today, must be something the coffee..)
However, I'm sure they know that the best control systems in the world won't compensate for the fundamental transmission-line bottleneck between Scotland and England.. Or the enormous problem of oversubscribed local low-voltage distribution networks. Resistive losses "P_r = I^2 R" is after all, basic physics. It doesn't take a Plasma Physicist to know that you can only shove so many electrons per second down a given cable before it starts to heat up, waste energy, and fail. There's no way we're all moving to Heat Pumps and EVs without a LOT more pylons, substations and local under-the-road cables, even if we had the generating capacity.
So I'm all for this, so long as it doesn't detract any investment in physical infrastructure, i.e. we need more pylons, more substations, and ideally, HV-to-the-kerbside.
...but it's a much bigger grid with a much higher "minimum inertia"
Or we could just ditch 'renewables' because they're the root cause for why our energy grids are increasingly unstable, and more expensive and complex to manage. Inertia is one of the big challenges because 'renewables' typically don't provide that, so oscillate all over the place. Some of this could be improved by adding inertial buffers, like batteries, or even the ginormous flywheels groups like the AEA have used in fusion and other experiments. But these solutions all increase the cost of something that's already expensive, and is always going to be intermittent by comparison with other generation types.
We need to do something, and so far in the UK that "something" has been too little, too late, and largely renewables. But the issue of grid frequency with said renewable sources is solvable, it just needs a bit more consideration in how you design the inverters so they offer a "synthetic inertia" that can help pull/push the overall grid towards the correct nominal frequency value as spinning turbines naturally do:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/squared/dispatches-from-the-grid-edge/solving-the-renewable-powered-grids-inertia-problem-with-advanced-inverters
Sure, that would fix the problem.
Ideally, what we need is more nuclear power, so that we can have stable power without the CO2.
But thanks to a regulator being run by people fundamentally opposed to and terrified of nuclear-anything, nuclear is horribly slow and expensive to build.
If only UKAEA could have spent the last 50 years on researching better fission designs instead of all that fusion, I do believe we'd be in a much better place. But then we closed Dounreay.. And how the oil companies must have celebrated that, i'm sure..
BTW for the link to work in my earlier post you have to remove the HTTPS. Apparently the Reg sticks that on all links
-> Ideally, what we need is more nuclear power, so that we can have stable power without the CO2.
How about the cost? By the time you say the words "Hinkley Point C" the costs will already have gone up YET AGAIN. It's already billions over budget. One way or another the tax payers will pay for this.
"Only if your deliberately making your grid unsuitable for the renewables..."
Nobody is deliberately making the grid unstable for renewables! Rather the opposite, the existing grid is designed for relatively stable inputs that can easily be adjusted to track load. It is the instability of renewable input that can't be handled by the existing grid. It's not a showstopper, because unstable renewable inputs to the grid can be smoothed out using energy storage. And while renewables themselves are relatively cheap, energy storage at any significant scale (ie grid-scale) is humungously expensive.
I don't have a detailed analysis of the cost of renewables + storage vs nuclear (which as a stable baseload does not need gigantic amounts of associated storage), but I'm pretty sure it's not "a lot less", and could very well be a lot more
And while renewables themselves are relatively cheap, energy storage at any significant scale (ie grid-scale) is humungously expensive.
I'm a firm believer that the long term future is nuclear + renewables + storage. Storage doesn't have to be grid scale, its going to be a revolution when people's EV batteries are used to service the typical household's peak energy usage, charging up overnight when demand is near zero and wind is strong. Our grid usage is so lop-sided that 20+ million EVs won't be a hindrance, it will balance the grid.
Really......... Are you really expecting some low profit energy company to actually pay for the wear and tear of all these battery packs?
An energy system thats reliant on an unpaid individuals battery pack to work efficiently and effectively is doomed to failure.
Let's be clear, I'm not saying EV owners will hook their cars up to provide energy back to the grid in peak usage hours. As you said, why would they, what is their benefit?
I'm expecting the EV owner to see the benefit of shifting their own grid usage to off-peak to reduce their own bills. Why pay 43p / unit when you can pay 2p / unit? The net result however will be to reduce peak energy usage and balance usage to mediate the evening surges.
EV battery wear and tear is less than expected. After 7 years, a battery pack might be at 70% of its original charge capacity, and that's the point where it becomes a good idea to not carry around that extra weight and get a fresh set of batteries for your car, but I think we will also see those old EV battery packs recycled into home storage batteries - if you're not driving around with it, it doesn't really matter how bulky it is, and it's cheaper to re-use cells than it is to actually recycle them in to new cells.
I'm expecting the EV owner to see the benefit of shifting their own grid usage to off-peak to reduce their own bills. Why pay 43p / unit when you can pay 2p / unit? The net result however will be to reduce peak energy usage and balance usage to mediate the evening surges.
Sadly, it doesn't work like that, and our politicians aren't that smart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_7
Houses using the Economy 7 tariff require a special electricity meter which provides two different readings - one for electricity used during the day, priced higher, and the other for the night, priced lower. The night (off-peak) period lasts for a total of seven hours, hence the name; however it may not be a continuous period,[citation needed] as it may alternate between the two prices during the night.
The term was coined by Jon Marshall. The first mention of Economy 7 is in 1978
A new off-peak tariff known as the 'Economy 7' tariff was introduced in October [1978]. It featured a seven-hour night rate some 20 per cent cheaper than most night-time tariffs, made possible by economies in the night-time operation of the system.
In more recent years the difference between day and night rates has become larger, with a reduction of about 33%[2] (though dependent on the supplier). The Economy 7 tariff results in either or both of an increased standing (fixed) charge or increased daytime rate.
And it was introduced for much the same reason. We were going nuclear, so wanted some method to incentivise demand-shifting to sink off-peak generation. It's an extremely simple system with a simple radio teleswitch that controls stuff like storage and water heaters. If 'smart' meters were really smart, it could be extended to control devices that aren't on dedicated circuits as well. Despite this already existing, and already performing the function of moving energy demand to off-peak.. Our idiotic politicians don't recognise the benefits and offer incentives for more people to switch to this tariff style. Instead, there are actually disincentives because Economy 7 tariffs are regulated differently and customers are screwed by the suppliers.
In theory, as well as being exactly the kind of technology to meet official government decarbonisation policies, it can also work out a lot cheaper for consumers. Main challenge is the installation cost and space required for hot water tanks and storage heaters. But the technology is also extremely simple and cheap. Well insulated hot water tank with a cheap resistive heating element is a lot cheaper to install and maintain than a modern gas combi boiler. Oh dear, the boiler's broken. Oh, it's £20 for a new heating element. It's much the same with storage heaters given they're also heat elements warming a pile of bricks, or some other thermal mass to act as a heat store.
Far, far cheaper and more effective than heat pumps, especially if you need to sacrifice more space to fit larger radiators for those anyway.
"Storage doesn't have to be grid scale, its going to be a revolution when people's EV batteries are used to service the typical household's peak energy usage..."
According to Ofgem a typical UK household uses about 8kWh/day. A mid-sized electric car has a battery capacity of about 50-60kW, but you wouldn't want it to discharge to less than maybe 10. So at 1 electric car / household, storage could last 5-6 days. BUT it's going to be a long, long, time before the 1 electric car / household is reached. Even if every single household that COULD have an electric car has one, there are many, many households that do not have their own private garage, private parking slot or on-street parking. Even if every new build is obligated to make such a thing available, it would be decades before some properties are rebuilt and up to scratch. And in the meantime, people are also going to want to use their cars to erm.... drive about, which is what they bought them for in the first place. I can see that people might be willing to discharge their car to use electricity in their own home themselves, but allow that power to flow to the grid when there's a shortage??? not so likely!!!
So if maybe (being generous) 50% of households have electric cars, and about 10% have full batteries AND are available to the grid, you have about 6 hours' capacity nationwide (for wind lulls that can last a couple of weeks). It's clear that every little helps, and people using their own car batteries to supplement their own electric use will remove stress from other parts of the grid and is anyway welcome, but it can still only be a small part of a much larger (and very costly) storage solution. (incidentally, even having every household install the necessary cabling / inverters / chargers, plus the upgrade of the grid 'last mile' to handle it is itself a gigantic and costly infrastructure project)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/09/national-grid-pays-high-price-for-gas-generated-power-during-uk-cold-snap
Noted some mention here of “Dinorwig, a vast, pumped hydroelectric power plant in north Wales nicknamed “Electric Mountain”, which is the fastest source of electricity in the UK.”
Noted National Grid being held to ransom by gas-power station operators… who now seem am to be owned by poachers… when people are belly-aching about the cost of Hinckley Point etc …
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/09/national-grid-pays-high-price-for-gas-generated-power-during-uk-cold-snap
Who is "deliberately making the grid unsuitable for renewables"?
The entire project that TFA describes is about trying to make the grid more suitable for renewables. It's so that we can have battery powered virtual inertia. But it's a hard problem and it risks reducing resiliency in other areas such as "cyber".
Unfortunately it's simply not possible for batteries to store anything more than an hour's worth of power. (and that's an optimistic estimate with all of the batteries we have in the UK, EVs included) To power the UK for a week of low wind would require more batteries than the world's annual production of them. And the natural resources are getting scarce.
See here for a rather optimistic and now (post Britishvolt collapse) outdated plan for the expansion of battery storage in the UK.
And "green hydrogen" requires a large amount of very expensive catalyst material for the electrodes. The only feasible material so far, is Platinum.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
Try some of this……At grid scale, and noted its Central Electricity Generating Board heritage.
Noted similar plans for Exmoor not progressed. Repeat this 50 times over across suitable areas in Scotland , Wakes, England, NI.
You’d also be stewarding additional water reserve capacity too. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Now there is a thought.
It's not the cost of Hinkley C build, it's all of the lawsuits and legal fees. Ok, some of it is the build, but oft delayed projects will also rack up more overruns. Anybody that's been to the DIY store knows that materials are through the roof. The price for a sheet of plywood has doubled over the last two years with no reprieve in sight and this is for something that does grow on a tree (or IS the tree, really). Lots of builders are having to sit down and do all of the sums over again as their mental estimator is way out of calibration. It used to be that you could just tack on 5% over last year's costs to cover inflation but doing that now can make you lose money on contracts.
What are the alternatives then?
The cost of continually burning fossil fuels are going to increase as the impact on climate change does untold damage. Look at all the floods and wind damage due to "unprecedented" events that are all once in 100 years. The trouble is they are once in five years now or worse.
Tidal is hugely expensive as well, even if it can be made to work. The strike price of the abandoned Cardiff Bay scheme was almost the same as Hinckley C.
Wind is relatively cheap at the moment because gas is expensive.
If we want to maintain current rates of consumption the electricity has to come from somewhere and it is only going to increase. That all costs money, huge amounts of money.
Its history is pretty sad. It was going well until about the mid-late '60s when the gov't started to lose interest; as soon as people saw the writing on the wall a lot of talent was lost to other industries. A lot of people moved on to Culham, I understand it was never funded properly: "new and exciting" never quite materialised and it soon became quite a depressing place to work, and Harwell's mostly just a business park nowadays, not even much attempt to preserve its history. Says a lot that the most high-profile nuclear-related industry there is for decommissioning.
Ouch. I think the STFC, the Rosalind Franklin, and Diamond would disagree with you. They do nuclear, but not nuclear in the way we know (particle physics vs energy physics).
But yes, the history of Harwell is virtually unknown. The RAL library has a copy or two of the book written about Harwell, and it was a fascinating read. The government handed marketing Harwell over to a private business park developer/marketer and that didn't work out too well because they were eventually relieved of their duties and the work taken in-house (a partnership between STFC and another private business park bunch). It's gotten better, but yeah, the history should be highlighted *A LOT* more.
And yeah, Culham is a sad shadow of what it was...
I really only know anything about Culham until the mid-late '80s but the impression I get is that funding and increasing disinterest were big problems that affected morale. '70s Culham seemed a bit healthier but even then it appears there was a lot of uncertainty compared to UKAEA's heyday of ~1960ish. Though a lot of my impressions are through personal journals coloured by other stuff that goes on in people's lives. My knowledge of what happened later is much more scant (hence your not unjustified "ouch"!) but your description of the private developer seems to dominate my general impression, fairly or otherwise...
The RAL (or rather Chilton) website is absolutely fascinating from a tech point of view and though only tangentially related to UKAEA (as I found out when I hassled them for information!) it's definitely worth a look. I know you said "library", but... well, actually I should probably take a drive down there if they let general riff-raff in.
Edit: linkypoo
I hate to tell you but the chances of RAL letting you into their library is slim to none. But, if you happen to have £60 lying around, you can buy your own copy of it at Amazon here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Harwell-Revealed-Nicholas-Hance-MBE/dp/0955305500/. Be advised - it's a tome; it could be considered a cultural weapon and a danger to small animals and humans, should you drop it on them.
tbf I wouldn't let me in so I can't really complain about anybody else not doing so! I dunno if the security's anything like it was back in the day when it had its own police force, just coming and going could be a PITA, probably why there were so many couples who both worked there.
For what it's worth, from someone that has been pro-nuclear+renewables for a few years I am very slowly coming round to this opinion. I don't think it's a criticism of nuclear, I think it's a criticism of the way the UK does major infrastructure projects, but either way.
My concern is a UK on 100% renewable is a UK with - strokes chin, puts finger in the air - a six-fold increase in wind generation (based on over-provisioning by about 100%, so we can generate green hydrogen to burn in CCGTs on windless days). This is also a major infrastructure project, but has the advantage of being mostly offshore where the parish council can't object. Is it going to be quicker and easier than building another couple of nuclear plants? I don't know.
Slapping up a couple of gas turbines never generates complaints in the sense of planning permission, because they are generally pretty compact and well noise-damped affairs.
Nukes and windmills on the other hand... Not in my back yard has been the default for roughly 50 years.
Nobody wants to greenlight projects that lose them seats at the next election, which is why e.g. the West Yorkshire Line sat un-approved for 10 years until it became obvious that the conservatives were going to lose their seat in the 1997 general election.
The NIC was explicitly formed to take the decision making authority away from MP's for scenarios exactly like the above. Trouble is, the overhead of "bypassing" is even greater than the conventional route.
Throw motivated activists into the mix as well e.g. buying up and carving up land between tens of thousands of landowners to ensure that projects don't proceed is a known disaster.
If you want more relatable examples of how terrible planning permission has become, just watch Clarkson's farm. Especially series 2.
Our government is powerless by design to take the big decisions, and our infrastructure is in trouble because of it. Pie in the sky objectives like net zero by 2035 etc. can ONLY be unlocked by disposing of this and empowering the infrastructure providers to get on with what's necessary.
Dieter Helm made a podcast about this very subject just a week ago. Worth your time.
A/C because, as if you did not already know, employed in this sector.
What was the lead time for Calder Hall? The UK built that in three years..
Not quite up to modern safety standards though..
The big mistake that the UK made in the 50s and 60s was to concentrate all their nuclear efforts into acquiring the bomb, and to conflate power generation with weapons production. They should have kept the two entirely separate. It was the weapons production which turned the public against nuclear power. What then happened is the CND took jobs in nuclear regulation and safety, and that's what gave us the utterly barmy regulations we have today.
For example, there is "no safe limit" for radiation - it must be kept "As Low As Reasonably Practicable" which enrages both nuclear engineers and anti-nuclear campaigners alike. We end up doubling the cost to reduce radioactive emissions when they were already well below background, and orders of magnitude below the radioactive emissions that come from burning coal (due to trace amounts of Radon in coal).
I have a friend who used to work at AWE, and they would for example restrict access to ordinary X-ray machines when the machines were off, in case of "residual X-rays".. He says it was a running joke there that 1 in every 3 workers is a CND fifth-columnist.
Calder Hall was built quickly because it was the prime breeder reactor for the bomb materials that the UK wanted. The fact it generated electricity was the cover for its real purpose. So it was inevitable that the military and non-military purposes were intertwined. Also, Calder Hall informed builders of later nuclear power stations of what worked or what worked better, and what didn't. First versions of any specific thing usually suffer from not being quite up to standard.
As for the CND, yes, they must bear responsibility for a variety of things (including the opposition to nuclear power in various countries, where local opposition took inspiration from the CND), although strict nuclear safety standards are a good thing (if infuriating and annoying to those required to comply with them).
As others have noted, planning permission was not nearly so impossible in 1950. Governments could do stuff, and people did not really get the chance to object.
Doing stuff in the national (and public) interest has been superceded by ME ME ME and NIMBY.
I'm not saying I want a nuke in my back yard, or a wind farm for that matter, but we do need them - or coal & gas burners plus the fuel to put in those burners.
National problems need national empowerment to deliver. Low and behold, much easier to do that under the auspices of a central electricity generating authority. Ahem, you know, that thing that Thatcher systematically dismantled.
Dounreay PFR had reached reached the end of its design life and IIRC only produced about 250 GW. Not a lot, conventional power stations were be making 660 GW X 4 four boilers+turbines at the time. I worked on the construction of the PFR as an apprentice in 1970. Seeing at first hand the standard of the construction work I was surprised it lasted the 25 years until the planned shutdown.
@Jellied Eel
I am for nuclear in comparison to oil and gas, but I just cannot see any intelligence in dumping 'renewables' at all.
Have a look at the Nordic grid. Sweden is constantly able to export electricity like mostly Norway too due to wind and hydro.
Finland is very dependent on nuclear due to less hydro and wind but still get at times as much from wind and hydro.
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
And here the French grid because it's well made.
https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source
I am for nuclear in comparison to oil and gas, but I just cannot see any intelligence in dumping 'renewables' at all.
No real need to dump it, just un-rig the market so it can be competitive again-
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/03/03/giant-uk-offshore-wind-farm-at-risk-without-government-support/
The Hornsea Three Offshore Wind Farm is expected to have a capacity of almost 3GW and generate enough energy to power three million homes.
...In a statement, Duncan Clark, Head of Orsted UK & Ireland, said: “Since the auction, there has been an extraordinary combination of increased interest rates and supply chain prices.
“Industry is doing everything it can to manage costs on these projects but there is a real and growing risk of them being put on hold or even handing back their CfDs.”
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. Orsted bid £37.35/MWh on their CfD round. Sceptics raised eyebrows about such a lowball bid. The 'renewables' industry launched a PR blitz claiming that their garbage was the cheapest form of generation evah, and costs would continue to fall! Orsted's proposed solution to their abysmal financial planning and marketing is to expect tax and bill payers to bail them out. And sadly, our government probably will, else the UK won't get to be able to brag about having the world's largest subsidy.. I mean windfarm.
Contractually, they can probably walk away. Contractually, government could probably hold them to their bid price. But based on an intial estimated capital cost of around £8bn, and wind's fundamental intermittency problems, it would be cheaper and more efficient to just build 2GW of nuclear instead.
But this is the real problem. I have no issue with 'renewables' selling power on an open market. Snag is nobody would willingly pay for overpriced, unreliable energy when there are plenty of cheaper alternatives. Especially if the 'renewables' scumbags were made to pay all the supply costs, not off-loading those onto our energy bills via subsidies. National Grid doesn't care if they need to waste billions hooking up windmills or battery farms because they'll make a profit and pass the costs onto our bills. So the usual problem of PFI-style deals where the costs are socialised, and the profits privatised.
Again it should be painfully obvious to even the most deluded Bbc climate reporter that if 'renewables' are so cheap and wonderful, our energy bills should be falling, not rising rapidly.
"But this is the real problem. I have no issue with 'renewables' selling power on an open market. Snag is nobody would willingly pay for overpriced, unreliable energy when there are plenty of cheaper alternatives."
I agree completely. Good to note, however, that fossil fuel energy is also artificially cheap due to (a) gigantic subsidies given through production grants, tax breaks etc* and most especially (b) not having to clean their own shit up (renewables have very little shit to clean up especially if infrastructure components can be recycles, while nuclear is forced to 'clean its shit up' to such a ridiculous extent that it has to leave radiation levels *below* background levels in some places)
As I also noted in an earlier post, the unreliability of renewables means they have to be combined with storage, so you have to factor in the cost of storage as well. If there was a real level playing field, with nuclear restrictions being (very slightly) relaxed to non-insane levels, cost of storage included in the cost of renewables by demanding a minimum guaranteed constant supply from them, and forcing fossil fuel providers to clean up after themselves to the extent of nuclear, I doubt that there would be that much price difference between the 3. Then you could get a sane combination of nuclear baseload, renewable + storage only in areas where it is highly efficient, gas turbines to fill in the gaps and no coal at all.
*Even if these subsidies aren't paid by the UK, but in the country of production, or if they are historical subsidies that were paid years ago to build up infrastructure, they still keep the price artificially low.
Good to note, however, that fossil fuel energy is also artificially cheap due to (a) gigantic subsidies given through production grants, tax breaks etc* and most especially (b) not having to clean their own shit up (renewables have very little shit to clean up especially if infrastructure components can be recycles, while nuclear is forced to 'clean its shit up' to such a ridiculous extent that it has to leave radiation levels *below* background levels in some places)
The fossil fuel industry isn't really very highly subsidised. Article here-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/07/25/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-uk/
The tied oil scheme essentially applies to oils which are not to be used for fuel, for instance lubrication. This cannot be regarded as a subsidy for fossil fuel, as it merely applies the same tax treatment as alternative products, such as synthetic oils.
Reduced rate of VAT mainly applies to the rate of 5% which is charged to domestic users of gas and power. Again, this is not a fossil fuel subsidy, or even taxation foregone, as it applies to all sources of power including renewables. There is no law or precedent that says energy should be taxed at the full rate of 20%, and many other goods are zero rated, as energy used to be.
North Sea oil tax breaks are not subsidies either – they simply define what expenses are allowable and when they can be claimed against corporation tax. Such breaks are common across many industries, and even after allowing for them, overall corporation tax rates on oil and gas producers remains substantially higher than other businesses.
Which covers the main points of the alleged subsidies. Tied oil is a fun one, eg agriculture and construction uses a lot of energy, so can use 'red' diesel, which has reduced fuel duty. There's no equivalent (AFAIK) for 'red' electricity, so assuming electric agricultural and construction equipment ever becomes practical, costs are going to increase, and so will inflation. A lower VAT rate is claimed as a 'subsidy', yet the 'renewables' lobbyists conveniently ignore fuel duty, which is a massive tax on consumption. Also a problem with 'Net Zero', because-
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/fuel-duties/#:~:text=Fuel%20duties%20are%20levied%20on%20purchases%20of%20petrol%2C,household%20and%201.0%20per%20cent%20of%20national%20income.
...They represent a significant source of revenue for government. In 2022-23, we expect fuel duties to raise £25.0 billion. That would represent 2.8 per cent of all receipts and is equivalent to around £900 per household and 1.0 per cent of national income.
Governments can't really afford to lose that gravy, especially as they're also forcing the electrification of transport. Currently, it's a reasonably 'fair' system of taxing based on consumption, so already a distance charging scheme. Drive more miles, use more fuel, pay more tax. No equivalent mechanism currently exists for EVs, which are already subsidised in other ways. But this is probably why there are new rules about fitting dedicated electricity 'smart' meters to EV charging points so an electric fuel duty can be applied. Otherwise electricity bills are going to increase faster than they already have been. There's also some subsidies already imposed on electricity users in both the 'standing charge' and unit rates to pay for EV expansion, hooking up windmills etc etc.
And of course oil companies have to lease exploration and production fields, pay royalties on any production and have a higher CT rate than other businesses, Scammers also claim 'environmental costs' should be charged to the oil industry, so the usual carbon scams. Claim the industry has caused £x billion in environmental damage which the industry hasn't compensated Gaia for and call that a 'subsidy'.
By contrast, for the last year or more 'renewables' companies have been generating colossal windfalls because gas prices have increased. Windmills don't run on methane, but the energy market was rigged to set 'market' prices based on the highest generation cost to subsidise the 'renewables' industry. There are also environmental costs from wind, so they're wildlife killers. Or when wind or solar farms go titsup.com, they leave behind scrap metal, carbon fibre, and massive amounts of concrete that's used in foundations. Those are generally not removed, either because the SPV's conveniently gone bankrupt or because they can be handy ways to convert greenfield->brownfield->residential. If the operator's gone bankrupt though, landowners or councils have been stuck with the remediation costs. Some have tried to make remediation escrow accounts part of planning consents, but the 'renewables' blob naturally objects to anything that may harm their future profits.
It is only because gas prices after years of stability suddenly increased that we ended up in this situation.
The market was not rigged and with anything from 20% to 60% of our electricity, intermittent renewables always have to be backed up by something that can run for days, weeks or even months on end.
Currently gas and a tiny bit of coal are those options.
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
At the time of commenting it is 53% gas. 24% renewable which includes Drax!
It all has to be paid for, you cannot have cheap renewables that are intermittent and then ignore what happens with the wind does not blow.
All those people who are on "100% renewable" tariffs are not getting 100% renewable energy, That is just an approximation of what is generated of the year. If you want genuine 100% renewable you either accept that when demand exceeds supply you have a power cut or you put all the infrastructure in yourself.
The latter needs a lot of space and money and you still need something to backfill when it does not generate enough.
At the time of commenting it is 53% gas. 24% renewable which includes Drax!
Burning forests is fine, when you're doing it for massive profits. I mean to save the planet.. Also helps when you had one of your execs 'advising' government via John Gummer's (aka 'lord' Deben) Climate Change Committee.
It all has to be paid for, you cannot have cheap renewables that are intermittent and then ignore what happens with the wind does not blow.
Therein lay the problem. We knew exactly what would happen because we've been there before. Hence why I keep referring to wind turbines as windmills because we've been there, done that and know exactly what the problems are. It's also why sailing ships eventually gave way to steam ships, especially after those out competed the magnificent Clipper ships.
So we knew what would happen when the wind didn't blow, and our economy was in the doldrums. Here it is again-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64879044
Two old coal-fired power plants have begun generating again as the UK expects to see its coldest night of the year so far.
... National Grid blames the cold weather, a shortage of wind and solar power generation, and a lack of electricity available through interconnectors from France due to strike action in the country.
Who could possibly have guessed that high pressure weather systems and it being, well, winter would lead to a reduction in insolation. light winds and cold temperatures.. Other than anyone who's lived in the UK for more than a couple of years and knows it's pretty normal for March. It's just weather, not climate. We have extensive records from weather stations showing this is all normal, and expected.. Although the Met Office has pointed out that average wind speeds have been declining over the last decade.
Yet the ignoranuses in government just.. couldn't see the connection between weather, weather dependent generation and the economic impact fsking everything up in such a spectacular fashion would have. Well, they kinda, sorta knew. So 'investing' in wind also meant 'investing' in stand-by capacity, generally gas. So CCGT ran at around £40/MWh, wind £80-120/MWh. For pretty much every GW of wind, we'd need 1GW of CCGT. Add in solar and it gets even worse because we know.. it gets dark at night. Especially during those long, winter nights when it also gets colder. Funny how that works, and how.. unpredictable it seems to politicians.
Few people stopped to ask why the stand-by capacity is so much cheaper than the primary, and if that made any economic sense at all.
But Ed Milliband got the 'Climate Change Act' written for him by Friends of the Earth. Bryony Worthington got made a Baroness for services rendered to destroying our economy and increasing energy poverty. And the UK became far more dependent on gas.. And then having become dependent, decided to stop buying cheap Russian gas. That'll teach those commies! Of course we still have our own oil and gas fields. We also still have a lot of coal. We could have met the 'legally binding' committments in the CCA by building modern coal power stations instead of paying to keep the 1960's ones we're relying on now running.
And no doubt our new budget will announce 'record investments' in yet more of this garbage. Meanwhile, actual energy industry experts (ie not the 'renewables' lobbyists.. or me) point out that this is only just the beginning, and meeting our 'Net Zero' ambitions is going to get horrifically more expensive, if we're to 'decarbonise' UK heating and transport.. Which will make absolutely no noticeable difference to global temperatures, or global warming. Especially as countries like China and India aren't following us off the cliff and are instead building cheap, reliable energy infrastructure.
@Jellied Eel
To be honest your comparison between sailing ships and windmills is just silly.
It wasn't the lack of wind that ended that period. Too much wind was the end of some of course, but not even the problem with the wind coming from the wrong direction was the problem. We know very well how the currents and the wind streams work around the earth.
The problem was the amount of people needed to sail those ships and that is hardly the problem with windmills producing electricity to day, rather the very opposite.
You mention the clipper ships but those disappeared long before the real sailing cargo workhorses of the sea had to go.
Even today some shipping companies use/experiment with those wind driven "spinning funnels" on modern ship
For those gone times this video is one of the very best (narrative by Irvin Johnson) there is on YouTube, if not the only.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tuTKhqWZso
One thing I find funny is how often adult people when writing about wind and sun just have to mention that the sun doesn't shine during the night and that there is no wind when there is no wind. I would guess quite a few kindergarten aged kids now that too.
We know very well how the currents and the wind streams work around the earth.
So what you're saying is we knew that depending on wind (again) was both utterly futile, and predictable?
The problem was the amount of people needed to sail those ships and that is hardly the problem with windmills producing electricity to day, rather the very opposite.
But.. but.. I thought the 'Green' energy revolution was going to create thousands of jobs? Also, keep up with the tech. Modern sailing vessels have a lot more automation for sail furling/unfurling. At least till they jump the rails and get stuck.
I would guess quite a few kindergarten aged kids now that too.
Sadly it seems they're all working for the Government, but probably know that now is spelled with a 'k' now, or at least since the Middle Ages. Which was probably around the last time that relying on wind made any sense given the modern alternatives, like nuclear or supercritical coal. Even St Greta, who actually skipped school now knows that nuclear is actually a pretty good low carbon energy source.
Utter BS. Fossil fuel subsidies are immense, both locally and internationally.
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/energy/paid-pollute-fossil-fuel-subsidies-uk-what-you-need-know
https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/business-action/low-carbon-transformation/eliminating-fossil-fuel-subsidies/how-big-are-fossil-fuel-subsidies
And in support of your case against renewables, yes, they are subsidised as well. You have argued repeatedly that renewables are making prices higher. So lets address the issue, and break the link between the price of renewables and marginal generation on the day. Free market economics doesn't like that sort of thing, because "socialist", oo-errr scary Stalin shit. Which is bollocks as well of course.
Where is all that massive profit that is being raked in especially in the last 12 months going? Follow the money. As you yourself have said, socialise the costs, privatise the profits. Pension funds love it, because it's one of the few industries with effectively guaranteed returns beyond death and taxes.
Better regulation, specifically, on the resale price of produce based on the cost of generation would resolve many issues. This would require a regulator to, you know, actually regulate the market.
Ofgem and BEIS (or whatever the latter chooses to call itself today - the former DTI that has gone through a dozen names in 20 years) have utterly failed in their consumer remit, while doing a fantastic job for the privatised profit element.
I will call you out yet again on the question of if not renewables, then what, and where, and how you will enable building of alternatives. Coal is dead and not coming back. Gas is compromised in terms of supply chain; unless you want to go haemorraging yet more cash to hostile states. HFO or Oil is out of the question for worse reasons than coal. Nuke is hopelessly expensive, election losing NIMBY fodder.
A mix is of course necessary, and we haven't even got that at the moment; nor the political foresight to develop the mix. Banking on fantasies like Fusion do not address the problems of today, that were known about 20 years ago.
There is another option, and that is called doing without. See South Africa for examples of what happens when that approach is taken.
Britain is, not putting too fine a point on it, screwed if it remains in status quo or looks backwards. Evolve or return to being the sick man of Europe again. (It's not far off that already).
Utter BS. Fossil fuel subsidies are immense, both locally and internationally.
I guess you didn't notice that the link I provided earlier used the same sources as yours, yet provided more of a breakdown regarding what, exactly those 'subsidies' are. Do you really think charging 5% VAT on gas (or electricity) instead of 20% is really a subsidy? Especially when that VAT is being charged after adding fuel duties and other subsidies to our bills? And the government wonders why we have record inflation..
You have argued repeatedly that renewables are making prices higher. So lets address the issue, and break the link between the price of renewables and marginal generation on the day. Free market economics doesn't like that sort of thing, because "socialist", oo-errr scary Stalin shit. Which is bollocks as well of course.
Errm.. No. You appear to have this exactly bass-ackwards. Here's wiki-
In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.
So I agree, we should have more of a free market. Instead, we have a very heavily regulated and mismanaged market that's been ruthlessly exploited for profit by lobbying and regulatory capture. Save the planet, build a windmill. Save the planet, rip out your gas boiler and fit a heat pump.. Even though those don't work very well <5C and require more electricity. Which we can't produce because there's a blocking high pressure weather system and the windmills are sucking power for de-icing.
The 'renewables' lobby certainly hates the idea of a free market though, because the heavily regulated one is the only thing that's keeping them in business and champagne. Nobody sane would willingly buy electricity for £140-£160/MWh when they could pay £40-80/MWh for gas, coal or nuclear. Or even less, because for some odd reason nuclear isn't considered 'low carbon', even though it generates virtually zero CO2. Both energy producers and energy consumers have to pay collosal subsidies to the 'renewables' scumbags, and parasitic operators like the 'National Grid'.
And we wonder why our bills rise ever faster. Our politicians wonder why inflation is rising fast, and why we're back to the good'ol days strike action to demand more pay because their energy policies have massively increased our cost of living, and reduced our quality of living.
But that also extends to the whole ecosystem that's sprung up to take money out of our economy and pockets. Because 'renewables' are useless, we 'need' complex management systems to try and manage the mess the 'renewables' scumbags have created. That will generate profits for the peddlers of those systems. Radical idea. Simplify the system so it's easier to manage instead. Much cheaper, much more reliable, and much safer, especially when applied to critical national infrastructure.
Coal is dead and not coming back. Gas is compromised in terms of supply chain; unless you want to go haemorraging yet more cash to hostile states. HFO or Oil is out of the question for worse reasons than coal. Nuke is hopelessly expensive, election losing NIMBY fodder.
Coal is by no means dead, and is experiencing something of a boom in developing countries. Again we could have easily met the Climate Change Act's 30% CO2 reduction goals by simply replacing our 1960's vintage coal generation with supercritical designs.. Even without burdening them with pointless stuff like CCS. Snag is the CCA fixated on carbon rather than CO2, and it's 'legally binding'. Which is a bit strange because I thought the goverment was the legislature and had the ability to repeal past or current legislation. Blair's government even made that easier to do.
And you're right about gas and dependency on hostile states. Earlier I mentioned Orsted's special pleading and demands for a massive bailout. Orsted's majority owned by the Danish government. The Danish government were complicit in the destruction of NordStream, either directly or indirectly enabling an attack on a NATO member's critical infrastructure. Either way, it's the 'renewables' policy that increased our dependence on gas, and thus our vulnerability to any supply disruptions, accidental or intentional. Yet the UK can be largely self-sufficient wrt energy production given we have our own oil, gas and coal. Nuclear's even easier given we have some uranium deposits, or can just buy that from 'hostile' states like Canada, Australia or even the US.. Except I think the Clintons sold much of their Uranium production to Russia.
See South Africa for examples of what happens when that approach is taken.
We don't need to look that far because it's already happening here, and the situation is only going to get worse.
"Nuclear's even easier given we have some uranium deposits"
Lots sat at Sellafield!
It is very strange given the trillions being spent globally on wind power that the builders are losing money. Orsted bid cheap to get the job as the UK almost always goes for cheapest bidder. And they know full well that they've got us over a barrel. This is why pretty much every major project here goes wrong.
We've not had a free market for centuries. If you need the govts permission to do something then it isn't free.
Greenpeace and other eco groups have been blathering on about how wind is 9x cheaper than other sources so maybe they should tell Orsted to STFU.
As to who blew up nordstream... pretty sure you can rule out the ruskies for once.
Lots sat at Sellafield!
And further afield-
https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/exploration/potential/home.html
Starting in the 1950s the Atomic Energy Division of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority conducted exploration for uranium in Britain. The work included acquisition of airborne geophysical data over south–west England and detailed ground investigations at many localities, mainly in Scotland and south–west England as is described in the Exploration Guide.
They found some, but as is often the case, probably not currently economically viable to extract it. Especially when it's (currently) abundant elsewhere in the world so we don't have to deal with the inevitable angry luddites protesting both mining and nuclear. But there's also Thorium, and that stuff is everywhere. Especially in existing 'waste' heaps from previous mineral extraction. But extracting that would probably require a collosal amount of paperwork, because although it's 'green' waste recycling, it's nuclear. We might need to mandate construction of nuclear reactor halls so workers have a safe space to shelter from the lethal radiation outside..
As to who blew up nordstream... pretty sure you can rule out the ruskies for once.
That one's getting really weird given the latest 'news' suggest it might have been Ukraine, or Ukrainians attacking NATO. I kinda pointed out at the time the depth was simple enough for commercial or even leisure mixed-gas or technical divers to operate, and it didn't need any super-sneaky sophisticated (and very expensive) state actors to do the job. There are still apparently two undetonated charges that were recovered and would hint at the level of clue behind the operation. Plus how practical it would be to fit all that plus divers, gas supplies etc etc onto the yacht that was allegedly hired.
Strangest part is despite being one of those 'anoymous sources say..' stories, the MSM is running with this one, but pointedly ignored Hersh's theory.
If it turns out the US was behind the nordstream explosions then there really will be hell to pay. It will probably be the end of NATO. Germany for sure would be VERY unhappy.
They needed a way to get continental Europe behind the support for Ukraine and the best way was to hit the energy supply. The UK has been supporting Ukraine (and if you believe the stories actively messing up chances of peace) but Germany was VERY reluctant as was France. Once it starts affecting everyday people things change.
If the Russians wanted to freeze the Germans all they had to do was close the valves.
There are claims that the US is indeed behind the 'termination' of Nordstream - The claim is that they installed remote-detonation plastic explosives months before during their annual Baltic military exercises that they always invite the Baltic nations to, and then used a specific signal broadcast by submarine/surface boat to start the explosion timers.
However, there is another claim that says Ukraine did it. The latter makes more sense, although the former does kinda stack up with the US having past form on crap like that.
Wind, without subsidy, is cheaper per kWh than Nuke, Gas, Coal or Solar.
Yes, reliability is a factor. Gas is the marginal generation fuel of choice, and by design, the retail market prices ALL generation at the retail price of the last dispatched generator.
With enough wind, gas ceases to determine price at the plug. In the absence of "enough" price gouging will continue.
It's not actually in many large institutional investors interests to let renewables or nukes onto the system because this interferes with their profiteering from the market. And large institutional investors, for better or worse, hold much influence to the keys to parliament.
Low and behold, stories promoting NIMBYism and glacial planning permission are tools used to keep competition down and prices high.
Another market where this is the case is housing.
This ethos is at odds with the interests of the vast majority of citizens. Time for change.
Wind, without subsidy, is cheaper per kWh than Nuke, Gas, Coal or Solar.
That's excellent news. UK has it's budget coming up, so it can announce it's removing all wind's subsidies! Alternatively, see the comment I made about Orsted's special pleading. It bid £37, it's now discovered it can't supply at that price. Yet that price has been used to support bogus claims that wind is cheap.
Reality is it's just a marketing trick. Wind still cannot, and never will be able to provide reliable power because it's at the mercy of the weather. So once you add in all the costs to turn wind power into reliable power, like grid control and stabilisation stuff like the software mentioned here, it gets massively expensive in comparison to alternatives that don't need all that extra expense. It's a bit like saying Tesla is the cheapest car on the road (batteries not included).
Gas is the marginal generation fuel of choice, and by design, the retail market prices ALL generation at the retail price of the last dispatched generator.
It's not the retail cartel.. I mean market. It's the wholesale market that's the problem due to having been designed to subsidise wind, both by prioritising 'renewable' supply, and setting price based on most expensive supply. Obviously that's entirely contrary to business (non-renewable) and consumer interests, but guaranteed top price for wind. Then governments decided to ban gas, that became expensive and the benchmark, and 'renewables' operators generated massive windfalls even though their input costs were unaffected. Plus there's the little detail that effective lobbying by the 'renewables' scumbags increased dependency on gas, eg CCGT on stand-by to spin up as wind speeds drop. Then by relegating gas to a stand-by for wind & solar, it increased the costs of gas-generated electricity as well.
But again the solution is simple. Let the wind lobby put their money where there mouth is. If you're right, they no longer need subsidies, and our electricity bills should fall rapidly. Strangely enough, the more we've been 'investing' in 'renewables', the higher our bills have risen..
> Strangely enough, the more we've been 'investing' in 'renewables', the higher our bills have risen..
See correlation != causation. But of course you knew that; disingenuous snark and scare-quotes do little to promote your argument(s).
> Strangely enough, the more we've been 'investing' in 'renewables', the higher our bills have risen..
Yes some people seem to totally forget that the goal is to cut the pollution from energy production around the world.
Working out the cheapest way of producing energy regardless of pollution is not what it is about.
That is something we have been experts at for a very long time.
No, they are claiming it is cheaper right now.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-price-for-uk-offshore-wind-is-four-times-cheaper-than-gas/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/24/limits-on-renewables-will-keep-uk-energy-bills-higher-this-winter
Also
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/05/boris-johnson-to-unveil-plan-to-power-all-uk-homes-with-wind-by-2030
<shrug> Maybe they were right then (for various values of "they")... but ultimately if you're not including (at least projected) long-term costs, comparisons are meaningless.
(As for the third article, of course I would never be as crass and obvious as to make snide remarks about Boris and wind.)
If we could harness the wind from Westminster we would be the worlds greatest exporter of clean energy!
Long term costs depend on how pessimistic you are with the predictions. Global CO2 is going to be dominated by the 'global south' soon and they are not going to be giving up their electricity and transport as they drag themselves into the 21st century. They might have a smaller per capita output but that is multiplied by a VERY large number.
> Long term costs depend on how pessimistic you are with the predictions.
Inevitably - but then there's wrong and there's just plain wrong.
> Global CO2 is going to be dominated by the 'global south' soon and they are not going to be giving up their electricity and transport as they drag themselves into the 21st century.
And it's hard to argue with any moral authority why they should not do so, given that the "wealthy north" has enthusiastically soiled the planet's nest, while treating said global south as a source of cheap labour and plunderable natural resources, over a few odd centuries. Perhaps the best we can do is try to set some kind of example, share technology, and encourage the exploitation of economies of scale which can potentially tip the balance in favour of non-polluting energy sources.
We have absolutely ruined some of those countries in our drive for stuff. The UK plastic 'recycling' that ships our rubbish half way around the world. The dash for solar buying cheap panels from China where environmental standards are low to non-existent. The rare earth minerals mined by children and/or destroying the soil and water that local farmers need to survive.
Which fashion retailer had the 'order by 9pm for next morning delivery'? Same day Amazon prime. Everything cheap and a click away. Now now now give give give more more MORE!!
Yeah, we have a lot to be blamed for. The issue is we are working in such a short sighted quick fix that long term we are probably going to make things worse.
Jennifer Granholm (US sec for energy) was boasting about how the US is now an energy superpower as they are exporting LNG to make up for the post-nordstream-go-kersplode shortages in Europe. I thought we were trying to transition away from coal and gas but when there is profit to be made....
I'm aware of that but it appears the people writing the articles are not. As I said, we are being sold this line however the reality is what they are saying is pretty much a lie.
The way the wholesale pricing works is broken so we don't see this cheap electricity and the difference goes into the pockets of the producers and distributors.
"Working out the cheapest way of producing energy regardless of pollution is not what it is about."
True, but I just have yet another notice shoved in my electricity bill that the power company is petitioning for another rate increase. While I might have some concern for the environment, I have an even bigger concern that I don't get sick due to not being able to afford to heat the house. It's not usually change that's the problem, it's the rate of change. Power was 8p/kWh less a couple of years ago (around a 20% increase).
"With enough wind"
Ah, the never ending 'we just need more'. When does it become enough? 2x, 4x, 10x?
We live in a country that is small enough for virtually ever part to be under the same weather system. It isn't common but it happens.
"It's not actually in many large institutional investors interests to let renewables or nukes onto the system"
Nukes, no, because they can make power day or night, wind or rain and even in the snow. Very dull, no extra profit to be made.
Renewables, they LOVE them! Because they know full well that every kW of renewables comes with a kW of gas or diesel backup.
We should do both renewables and nuclear. And also keep heavy funding in fusion. We should also learn how to better stabilise grids. And how to efficiently capture carbon. We should also improve energy efficiency of everything.
Frankly, the energy problem is too big and too important to exclude any solutions, or to ignore any avenue of research (barring the patently bonkers ones). If one or more of these things eventually turn out to be a giant waste of money, we'll be royally annoyed, but we'll live. If the thing we ditched eventually turns out to be the only one that would've worked at scale - well, we don't.
"I don’t think Denmark is more windy than for example Liverpool, from memory:-)"
I don't know either, but I am sure there are statistics available for that. A woman I knew (my mother) who spent a year in Denmark long ago told me cycling was nice downwind but often turned to dragging the bike with you upwind.
Denmark has got this reputation for wind because they have a lot as a percentage. Right now 48% but the sad fact is that the rest they need is by burning stuff and importing from Norway and Sweden, but they also then export to Germany and the Netherlands right now.
They, like other Nordic countries also have some solar power.
Denmark is less green than the other Nordic countries until they add wind and cut down on thermal power and there is a limit to that as there isn't wind all the time. With some nuclear power they could become very green in my books.
https://en.energinet.dk/energisystem_fullscreen/
"Or we could just ditch 'renewables' because they're the root cause for why our energy grids are increasingly unstable"
The big problem is the entire system was not designed and built with highly intermittent inputs scattered across the network at random nodes. Also, nobody is trying to find the optimum uses for those intermittent power inputs and just hooking them into the grid and hoping everything works out.
Also, nobody is trying to find the optimum uses for those intermittent power inputs
They are, kind of. It's one of the drivers for the whole Hydrogen bubble. Or in a more extreme example, dear'ol Dale Vince came up with a cunning plan to turn wind into diamonds. He hasn't quite gone full circle and created a completely sustainable carbon cycle by usng the diamonds for fuel though. Problem is most chemical and industrial processes require reliable, constant energy. So 'greening' industries like steel production or bioplastic injection molding would have.. problems if windspeeds drop and their liquids solidify.
I guess one option would be simple resistive heating, eg build greenhouses next to windfarms and nuclear plants. Then 'waste' heat or other energy could be used to grow crops. Nuclear tomatoes might be a hard sell though. The 'renewable' industry prefers more profitable 'solutions' though, like convincing our ignoranus politicians to build massive piles of batteries. That way, they can sell energy to charge the batteries, sell it at a huge markup when there's high demand and limited supply, and of course provide 'inertia' or grid stabilisation services to 'fix' the problem they're responsible for creating.
"Then 'waste' heat or other energy could be used to grow crops"
I'd love to see more co-gen projects. A citrus grove with underground heating would mean fruit could be grown in places that experience frost too often to have otherwise. Lots of industrial processes need heat so would be good to site near power plants. Even if the waste heat isn't at a high enough temperature, it's cheaper to add a bit of heat than to start from ambient. Lots of applications in food processing.
I am turning to be a socialist in my old age. What we want is an organisation to plan and develop storage solutions. We could call it the CEGB. We have power companies who have their own systems, we have water companies that have theirs. The CEGB could develop pumped storage systems using our reservoirs that are relatively local based to even out the load, using all that wind energy when not required by the grid and storing it locally for when everyone puts the kettle on after Eastenders or the cup final.
We have thousands of miles of canals with the potential to give a large storage solution with perhaps 150mm of 'storage'. With a central non profit body, this could all be planned with adequate capacity.
It is not in the interests of the generators to do this. It is not in the interest of the water companies to do this. It is not in the interests of the British Waterways to do this.
Where I live there were 5 oil storage tanks put up virtually overnight in WWII that had the capacity to store something like 25Mwh each. Plenty for the local community. If they could do it then, it would be easy now.
We have thousands of miles of canals with the potential to give a large storage solution with perhaps 150mm of 'storage'. With a central non profit body, this could all be planned with adequate capacity
It.. doesn't really work like that. Using water for energy storage either needs horizontal or vertical flows. Canals aren't renowned for either, although I guess you could do something on a very small scale with lock gates. Pumped hydro really needs solutions like Dinorwig, or dams. The UK doesn't have a great many locations for either. And locals would no doubt object to planners wandering around going "What a beautiful valley, let's flood it!". Plus there are similar problems as with megabatteries, namely it can take a long time to charge them, and not very long to discharge. Then again, it's an area where windmills could actually prove useful, ie using them as plain'ol water pumps. Still a sensible idea for getting water out of aquifers in off-grid locations. Problem is you'd need a lot of them to lift a lot of water up a mountain against gravity. And it's that pesky weather again. You need the store to discharge when there's no wind to spin windmills, so how do you refill your reservoir?
Much like current proposals, all it'd do is make the current 'renewables' problem even more expensive when there are far cheaper alternatives like nuclear, or even modern supercritical coal power stations.
Why son, that's the Sheffield Fusion Power Center crater. Created back in 2042 when they relaxed regulations for fusion power and let AI power up three fusion runs at the same time.
You can't criticize the AI Dad!
Oh no son, I'm not. All hail the AI and the many benefits it brings. Now let's get back to the hovel before it gets dark. We still need to build a fire to keep the mutants away.
One of the challenges real time software development is that it tends to be very conservative and a couple of steps behind CI/CD best practice.
The lack of common frameworks means that most RTOS applications are closely coupled with both OS and processor architecture.
Something like this could provide a good abstraction layer to build truly portable RTOS application. However it would depend on its capabilities. for example it is not obvious whether it has a security layer, which is pretty critical to modern RTOS projects
> one of the challenges is software going out of date or the vendor not supporting it anymore
However, that is only one component. Although the fusion software is designed to run on multi-platform systems, as the article tells us, that only applies to those multi-platform systems that exist today. While it might still be possible to buy or get spares for today's multi-platform systems in 20 years time, there is no guarantee that the fusion libraries will be compatible with the hardware or operating systems that people will be producing in the 2040's.
The article and the comments don't seem to have any input from people who are familiar with what ESO does to balance the UK grid, how it does it or what the actual challenges are.
There is a lot of public info on the website but the actual problems are around trying to balance the difference between what the "free market" (loads of retailers, loads of generators) have done and the actual demand. This is done by people in a room with lots of screens.
Different generators need different notice periods to generate. So coal could be 24 hours and Dinorwig 30 seconds. There are different sorts of data networks involved and the backup is a phone call. Watch episode 2 of Guy Martin's Power Trip for some insight.
Anon because.
Different generators need different notice periods to generate.
How much notice do wind and sun farmers need to generate? And could this be the root cause of the complexity, and problem(s) the ESO is trying to manage?
There are different sorts of data networks involved
Which is a complication in itself. Luckily Berkshire is well connected, even if consolidation means just managing the networks and resilience becomes a significant problem to manage. Or try to. Especially when the ESO's telecomms suppliers need cheap, reliable power to provide and maintain those networks. Or just supply power to the kettles to network designers so they're sufficiently caffeinated while trying to explain to ex-double glazing sales types that..
1) Yes, your home xDSL connection is cheap.
2) It's not available in the middle of most fields.
3) It's even less likely to be available in anything that closely approximates fully diverse, resilient or high availability.
4) Doing it properly is going to cost you more than free installation and £20/month.
5) Even if we can convince you that running a telecomms duct while you're doing the civils for your power cables could save you an awful lot of money.
6) But not necessarily that much because grid transmission and data transmission sites are often not co-located,
But designing decent SCADA networks has always had it's own set of challenges. Fun though when the client has both clue and budget. Also why there was sense in HMG buying into OneWeb given VSAT's always been a handy diversity option. Except some challenges with the environment. I still remember one of the best product demos I've ever seen. Took place in a power station with a vendor demonstrating industrial Ethernet switches vs Cisco. Demo was rigged up with a video stream playing through both. We were told to keep watching the steam while an engineer pulled a big breaker. I was watching the Cisco and wondering why it was smoking a little. Guess that explained why we were told to leave all our electronic devices in the office.
I've seen some of the concepts and test articles for storing electricity as gravitational potential. All the ones I've seen rely on a tower stacking and unstacking concrete blocks using a tower crane. A mention was made of using an inclined ramp on the side of a hill and that seems to offer a solution to placement accuracy and problems with wind. Maintenance also might be much easier. If pumped water systems aren't viable someplace, maybe winching a weight up a hill would be.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
