Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

I have seen the suggestions that with suitable inter-connectors to Norway we could use their hydro infrastructure to store our wind power. No idea of the economics of this though.

The nit pickers will pick their nits but having a first order estimate say a 2050 UK grid with a daily winter demand of 1.25TWh that is 52GW average so to guarantee supply we need 52GW of dispatchable controlable output like CCGTs. In fact probably another 10% on top of that so lets say 60GW

Assuming no nukes in the grid and coal stations being shut down it means nearly the whole 60GW would have to come from CCGTs/OCGTs

So how much can Norway help us cut back on this need for 60GW of CCGTs?

The maximum working volume of hydrologic storage power plants is 85 TWh, whereas the average seasonal cycle is 42 terawatt-hours (TWh) and they have about 33GW max power output.

If money was no object and assuming they can double the power of their dams (so the dams supply 33GW domestically and produce another 33GW for export to the UK) and we built 33GW of interconnectors to norway and norway was best buds with just the UK and did not supply anywhere else then our needs for backup would go from ~60GW CCGTs towards 30GW of backup CCGTs and 30GW of backup from norway interconnectors so it is not a full solution even just for the UK

But is it any solution at all.
Do you keep 30GW additional of CCGTs on your own soil or do you become totally dependent on a foreign nation to secure the supply of the most important economic enabler in a country? I would not want norway or any nation to have that power over us

Anyway this is a first order guess at what norways dams can do, offset about the need for 30GW of CCGTs in the whole of Europe good but no full solution and only good if you are happy to become more dependent on another nation.

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

a watt is a unit of power not a unit of energy you should know better

how much energy can Norway store for Europe and which country is going to want to be dependent on a nation of 5 million for its economic lifeblood not being cut off?

Hi

Do the articles actually say that, or is there a misunderstanding related to energy & power? ...

It could be read that the proposal is 20x ~1GW plant upgrades on 20 individual sites to provide the additional 20,000MW, this being achieved in a number of cases through providing pumped facilities to current standard hydro-power systems ... For direct comparison, the relatively small water storage capacity Dinorwig system in North Wales has a nominal generating capacity of 1.65GW (max 6x288MW=1.728GW) with a full system storage capacity of 9.1GWh, that's 9100MWh, approximately half of the capacity if the figure was energy.
https://www.fhc.co.uk/en/power-stations/dinorwig-power-station/

Details of the Norwegian existing capacity & potential expansion can be found in the following Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum & Energy document ... facts_2015_energy_and_water_web.pdf ... note that many articles & debate on the subject consider the effect of additional generation capacity depleting inter-seasonal energy reserves - much of this has been countered by 're-charging' the system through pumping much more 'used' water back into storage ...

I hope this helps explain that 20,000MW could logically relate to power, not energy ... quoting the 2015 Norwegian government report on existing hydro-power (p27) ... "The mean annual developed production capacity is 131.4TWh, in addition to projects under development totalling 1.5TWh and licences granted for development of an additional 3.6 TWh" ... a 2015 total of 136.5TWh which represents an average power delivery of 15,600MW(24x365) across all sites ....

The additional 20GW capacity therefore could logically represent what's needed to recycle water storage, much of which would be within existing systems so as to increase the total stored energy potential within the system ... Pure hydro-power within the system would then remain at current levels, the additional generating capacity, if managed correctly, resulting in an effective nett-zero change in the volume of water used in the system (VCurrent + VAdditionalGenerationFlow - VPumpedReturn), however the current maximum available generation would roughly be doubled to meet 'export' requirements when demand needs to be satisfied and (efficiencies excepted) unaffected when the equipment is pumping (soaking up generation overcapacity from wind etc) as opposed to generating ....

All in all, the potential for the use of 20,000MW as being correctly used as a measure of power as opposed to energy (MWh) seems to stack-up pretty well, if only on the grounds that the storage volume at Dinorwig is relatively insignificant, yet would account for roughly half of the total in discussion if it was to be energy ... anyway, the decision's not in our remit - if it works out to be the solution that Norway, it's population & relevant investors want, then they'll do it, if not then they won't .... either way they'll not take note of utterly irrelevant and often unsupported anti-renewable postulations (or even pro-renewable ones) made on foreign boards such as this one!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Do the articles actually say that, or is there a misunderstanding related to energy & power? ...

HTH
Z

Thank you for responding. As you know I have the poster on ignore.

My understanding regarding the articles, and there are literally 100's of them, is that they are quoting the GW (power) that the storage can provide, to reflect the additional supply that Norway could provide, as this isn't just storage, but also a power increase as noted by the need for additional power cables and upgrades to power cables. The GWh (energy) would of course be much higher. So the use of power (not energy) is important. As you will also be aware, almost all articles addressing supply side and grid scale storage quote power, not energy, as they are considering the need to meet power shortages due to RE intermittency, or the ability to avoid peaker plants being called into operation, as per the UK's frequency response auctions, where batteries easily beat out peakers on price.

20GW is a huge amount of power. It's twice the additional demand in the UK at peak times, so would provide massive balancing across Northern Europe taking into account different time zones and weather, since, as they say, the wind doesn't blow everywhere at the same time ... etc etc..

If we assumed (always a dangerous thing to do) that the UK had a 30m strong EV car fleet, with 1/3 plugged into smart chargers at any one time, then just 'pinching' 1kW each, would provide 10GW of supply at peak times, and across a wide 4hr period (4pm to 8pm) would only be 4kWh each.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

20GW is a huge amount of power. It's twice the additional demand in the UK at peak times, so would provide massive balancing across Northern Europe taking into account different time zones and weather, since, as they say, the wind doesn't blow everywhere at the same time ... etc etc..

The problem is not intraday storage or demand/supply mismatch which EVs will solve the problem is winter days when solar is close to nil and the wind is still. What do you do if you have a week long period with almost no solar/wind output?

Right now its not a problem just fire up the CCGTs or OCGTs (assuming the nukes are retired and no coal then it will have to be all gas)

The idea put forward is that we can get rid of the CCGTs and rely on norway.

This is not feasible because a country like the UK will need something like 60GW of controllable supply. If money and security was no object and you could build 60GW of interconnectors to norway and upgrade all of norways dams to be 3 x as powerful as they currently are and there were no internal grid bottlenecks in either country then granted it is a possible solution.

But the solution is not great because well 60GW of interconnectors and uprating 30GW of hydropower to be 90GW of hydropower & pumped storage is not going to be cheap (if at all possible) and it also puts both grids and nations at risk and lowers security of supply

So it is not a full solution to the UK let alone the EU.
Now it can be a a partial solution instead of 60GW to norway maybe we can have 6GW and that will allow the UK grid to have 54GW of backup CCGTs rather than 60GW of backup CCGTs

This is probably what will happen. Norway might build upto 10GW of inter-connectors and act as a limited virtual battery for the UK/Germany/Belgium/Denmark with little to no need to upgrade their dams but it is not a realistic solution to the idea that the EU will want or need to get rid of its backup FF plants maybe a small percentage but not the majority let alone all of them

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

That's pretty much in line with my own approach & why the caution flag was raised ...

So when I say something like, 35 million cars & vehicles will need in the region of 150TWh it is a caution flag but when mart says there are 30 million cars which will use 2MWh/Average, which is wrong, it is gospel?

Either way what is it that you are actually protesting about bar my ability to comment on a free forum?

While I can be wrong I doubt I am more wrong more frequently than you or mart. Most of you are hobbyists I am an actual engineer. If my ability to post erks you so much then do as mart claims to have done and just put me on ignore.

Coastalwatch

GreatApe wrote: »

If my ability to post erks you so much then do as mart claims to have done and just put me on ignore.

Oh yes please, or better still, is there an option like Junk Mail I can initiate?

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

So when I say something like, 35 million cars & vehicles will need in the region of 150TWh it is a caution flag but when mart says there are 30 million cars which will use 2MWh/Average, which is wrong, it is gospel?

Either way what is it that you are actually protesting about bar my ability to comment on a free forum?

While I can be wrong I doubt I am more wrong more frequently than you or mart. Most of you are hobbyists I am an actual engineer. If my ability to post erks you so much then do as mart claims to have done and just put me on ignore.

Hi

If you're an engineer, act like an an engineer and support your postulations ... as it is it simply looks like infantile guesswork! - The information is there, the data is there, I've even supplied links to both ...

Cars - 32.3million
Miles - 6787

Now, the latest EVs are averaging above/around 4miles/kWh, so let's go with that and see how an engineer would establish a reasonable assessment using the latest available data/information ...

Annual - 32300000*6787/4
= 54,805,025,000kWh
= 54,805,025MWh
= 54,805GWh
= 54.8TWh

Daily Energy average - 54,805/365 = 150GWh
Therefore average power requirement over 24 hours is 150GWh/24 = 6.25GW

Now, lets look at your postulation ...

In the UK if we have 35 million cars using 4MWh / yr that is close to 380GWh of storage top up needed daily. Say the cars charge during the peak 8 hours of sunshine in the peak summer days that equals close to 50GW for 8 hours the cars will be able to soak up

380GWh seems to be overestimated by a factor of 2.5x (380/150), however this is further compounded by assuming that 100% of the vehicles are being charged within the same 'peak 8 hours' ... I would hope that any engineer I've ever known (and that would be hundreds!) wouldn't make such a flawed assumption and anticipate that a considerable proportion of charging demand would be overnight, so a more realistic spread would be ...

100% within 8 hours = 18.8GW (150/8)
50% daytime/50% overnight = 12.5GW (150/12)
Smart-charging avoiding 8 peak hours/day = 9.4GW(150/16)
Smart-charging avoiding 4 peak hours/day = 8.3GW(150/18)
Smart-charging with full smoothing pattern = 6.25GW(150/24)

Of course, allowance for the displacement of current demand associated with petroleum processing would be offset against these estimated figures, but we can just leave that aside for the moment.

Therefore a postulation that 50GW of additional generating capacity would be required to accommodate EVs seems to overestimate by somewhere between a factor of 2.7x (50/18.8) & 8x (50/6.3)

So what is the position of National Grid on this, they've obviously got their own expertise, their own engineers & their own views on the subject, after-all they're the ones that should have a plan ...

Just about 12 months ago (8/8/17), National Grid saw it necessary to counter argument based on press & vested interest postulations revolving around a requirement for an additional 30GW in additional generating capacity as a result of EV introduction ... http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1264/ev-myth-buster-v032.pdf ... in which their conclusion was ...

- The scenario which best fits the government’s statement is Two Degrees.
- The additional peak demand from EVs in that scenario is not 30 GW but more likely to be 5 GW.

Okay, considering that NG's assessment would logically include offsetting current demand that will no longer exist, their position would conclude that the 50GW postulated by one posting as an "actual engineer" is likely in error by a factor of 10x ... not my or Martyn's figures, but those of the organisation charged with actually sourcing & delivering the power.

As you're a concerned engineer that knows better, I suggest that the appropriate step is to contact NG directly, discuss your concerns in detail & ask whether there are any appropriate jobs available!

HTH
Z


#Edit - By the way, regarding "ignore", you've been on ignore for absolutely ages but the odd quote by others sometimes raises concerns that others may have missed - maybe others wouldn't want too much misinformation posted & would have a preference for supportable logic over guesswork based postulation!

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Therefore a postulation that 50GW of additional generating capacity would be required to accommodate EVs seems to overestimate by somewhere between a factor of 2.7x (50/18.8) & 8x (50/6.3)

I did not say 50GW of additional generation capacity is required to accommodate electrification of transport you lovely man

I said the mass deployment of EVs could ALLOW THE ADDITION OF SOME 50GW OF SOLAR PV to the system without the need to do additional elaborate storage or curtailment of said PV.

Care to retract your long winded post arguing about points not made?

Say the cars charge during the peak 8 hours of sunshine in the peak summer days that equals close to 50GW for 8 hours the cars will be able to soak up

Now if you want to argue that electrification of transport wont allow 50GW more PV onto the grids that the figure is far too high and electrification of transport will only allow a fraction of this 50GW of PV then go make that argument

NigeWick

Hello pigeons, here comes the cat. IF @tonyseba is correct and his numbers & graphs suggest that he is, then if there are 30 million cars on the road now there will be less than 10 million when the transition to autonomous BEVs is complete.

As to electricity generation and storage, he suggests that it is only about five years until solar and batteries will be cheaper than the transmission of electricity. It looks to me as though most of our home heating (heat pumps), lighting, cooking and transport could be locally generated, leaving wind and larger scale batteries to cope with everything else.

Since April, I have had a 4.6kW solar system, Immersun diverter for hot water, Tesla PW 2 and a 40kWh Nissan Leaf. In that time, my solar has produced 2.7MWh and I have consumed 1.8MWh. Due to using the 9kW shower and charging the car for "emergency" trips I have taken 0.2MWh from the grid and used no gas.

My point is, that this country could, if the will was there, generate enough electricity using just renewables with battery storage to live as we do now with no FF or nuclear generation.

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

I did not say 50GW of additional generation capacity is required to accommodate electrification of transport you lovely man

I said the mass deployment of EVs could ALLOW THE ADDITION OF SOME 50GW OF SOLAR PV to the system without the need to do additional elaborate storage or curtailment of said PV.

Care to retract your long winded post arguing about points not made?

Hi

Absolutely not, your actual position was based on guessing the total energy requirements for the guessed number of vehicles, annual mileage & their associated consumption, then applying this to 8 hours of charging ... the logic errors apply whatever the generation source, evidenced by the assumption that 100% of the EV fleet would need to be available during the daylight hours (ie not available to drive at those times!) and that the calculated 50GW (or the 150GWp of PV capacity later postulated) would need to be available during the entire 8 hour period in question, but that's not the case at hand, the error made is in the estimated requirement for 50GW and how it's derived in this referenced post ...

GreatApe wrote: »

As you install more and more PV the price will be lowest when solar is highest so the EVs will likely almost all opt to charge during the max sunshine hours

In the UK if we have 35 million cars using 4MWh / yr that is close to 380GWh of storage top up needed daily. Say the cars charge during the peak 8 hours of sunshine in the peak summer days that equals close to 50GW for 8 hours the cars will be able to soak up

... which is the case whatever the generation source, as evidenced by a simple sanity check on where the 50GW comes from ... 380/8 = 47.5, rounded to 50.

As basic errors have been made & exposed as such, any reasonable engineer would recognise this, accept it's happened & learn from the experience as opposed to employing a smoke & mirrors strategy to cover their mistake as they are aware of the potential consequences of engineering related denial & cover-ups!

Anyway, with engineer claims in question and a strategy akin to that utilised by serial trolls, I'm hopeful that everyone will carefully consider any further unsupported postulations as being suspect and deserving of a little basic sanity-test research! ...

An experienced senior engineer once quoted Aristotle to me as being a personal mantra which should be held by all engineers ... "The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think" ... I'm pretty sure that would apply and be most appropriate in the case of recent claims!

HTH
Z