Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

mmmmikey

1961Nick wrote: »

I wonder how many battery installations would be required to keep the frequency above the shutdown threshold when two generators go offline simultaneously?

A lot

However, every little bit helps and there is no doubt a point at which even my 4kWh battery on it's own is just enough to keep the frequency 0.0000000001Hz above the threshold at which point the grid goes down.

Also worth noting - the batteries don't need to deliver power for very long - just enough to shovel some more coal in at the coal fired power station, put 50p in the gas meter, press the button to raise the fuel rods, fire up the generator, whatever.

Premises with emergency generators (computer rooms, hospitals, etc.) typically have batteries as part of an uninteruptable power supply who's job it is to "keep the lights on" for the minute or so between the grid power failing and the backup generator automatically starting. That's all the batteries here need to do.

The value of batteries in this scenario is their ability to respond very quickly, not their ability (or lack of!) to supply large amounts of power over a long period.

So the scenario is you buy batteries as part of your domestic solar installation and most of the time you charge them during the day for use overnight. In addition to this, you allow the national grid to use them (for a fee) in case the brown stuff hits the fan like it did yesterday.

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

.... What I have challenged on here is the demonisation of everything that GA posts (by Z in particular) and questioned why that occurs ...

Hi

So to the question posed ...

Is it possible that 'Z in particular' hasn't been challenging the technical validity of the elements of the proposed solution, just the validity, cost & likelihood of acceptance of the solution as posed, all of which are individual hurdles that a solution would need to successfully overcome to reach fruition ...

Okay, somewhere in the mix is a realisation that what's being discussed is effectively high grade & low grade energy, the difference being how the energy can be applied and the value of that energy in the open market.

Electricity has multiple applications such as lighting, cooking, transport & powering what we've all become accustomed to in our lives, therefore considered pretty essential. Against this, heat can be used for heating ... and that's about it!

So, to relative value. If the purchase unit cost of electricity equated to the purchase unit cost of heat, there wouldn't really be an issue, but this simplistic approach is easily countered by looking at the value offered .... as well as powering everything we need to be powered, electricity and the application of an appropriate technology can be leveraged to produce heat on an above par basis (COP), therefore high grade energy can & will act to devalue low grade energy ....

Bearing this in mind, we'll look at the by-product of generation and how what is generally considered as being valueless waste (/inefficiency), it can effectively be seen as a co-product with a realisable value. The vast majority of non-RE generation results from heat powered & pressure driven turbines which results in considerable levels of heat being dumped into the environment ... call it waste, process inefficiency or whatever, the energy involved in creating the heat has a value which isn't being realised ....

The idea of CHP (combined heat & power) solutions is to harness the energy which would otherwise be wasted and make use of it ... you generate electricity (high grade energy), you create heat, you utilise the heat for heating & the combination of utilising both high & low grade energy increases the overall efficiency, and therefore value, of the whole process ...

If generation of electricity largely remains with heat driven turbines, then there's a considerable co-product to be tapped to increase value & profitability to the plant operators through CHP provision (average of £high+£low).... however, heat only provision (as proposed in heat only SMRs) can only be valued as low grade energy, this seriously impacting potential returns ....

At this point, to be totally clear, there is no technical issue with CHP, whether on an individual property basis, a shared property basis, or on a district heating basis ... the issue simply becomes one of cost, relative financial viability & public reaction of the solution posed, on the scale posed .

From what I've gleaned from exchanges to date, the proposed nuclear energy source solution continually bounces between CHP & heat only, totally overlooking the obvious - with SMRs provisioning energy on a CHP basis, electricity would power heat-pumps for those that have heat-pumps as well as EVs for those that have EVs, with district heat provision in the locality of the generation plant improving overall efficiency at a relatively low cost (vs a national transmission network), a potentially profitable model, against which the alternative would simply provide heat, but only to those that want to participate in the scheme (unless it's mandated!)

So, whatever the cost of a heat-main system, we effectively have the following components ...
- Heat source
- Transmission network
- Distribution network
- Connectivity
- In property system


The first three components represent considerable investment by a scheme operator or public fund, connectivity would likely be paid by the property owner as connected or when the service is first established (as per current practice in new developments!) ... importantly, the likely cost of transmission, distribution & connectivity are all considerable as individual project elements therefore cannot be overlooked ... the scale of such investment has already been addressed so as to highlight the issue at hand ...

To date, there's been no mention of the internal costs within consumer premises, which if simply looking at converting the wet heating systems in ~20million households would likely be an additional £40-£60billion (Av £2-£3k/property) .... importantly, on a national basis this is in the same ballpark as consumers simply opting for heat-pumps, thus saving all major costs associated with heat-main transmission, distribution & connectivity ....

So to likelihood of acceptance .... time & time again, national attitude surveys provide data which establish that nuclear power isn't quite as popular as it could be! ... and that's when it's not located anywhere near the backdoor step ... try and drop a couple of SMRs in a concrete block anywhere around Islington & there'd likely be a little pushback, so that's the real & apparent political & societal attitude litmus test which needs to be not only met, but overcome ...

So, the world becomes perfect, lobby groups look the other way, politicians of all flavours get behind the project, funding is allocated and the generation, transmission & distribution network is fully funded and built with absolutely no disruption anywhere (scene set?) .... the consumer is faced with a choice of paying an up-front property connection cost in the £thousands alongside internal modifications of £thousands more just to be faced with considerable heat provision bills which must reflect energy creation & network investment fixed costs which together likely result in low-grade energy unit prices being higher than the equivalent electricity unit prices, or simply buy into a cheaper alternative? ...

... 'build it and they will come' isn't really all that likely a scenario on this one .... technical & financial realism is sometimes a sobering concept that needs to be considered! ....

HTH
Z

Hexane

1961Nick wrote: »

I wonder how many battery installations would be required to keep the frequency above the shutdown threshold when two generators go offline simultaneously?

Possibly less than we'd think. Based on Martyn's post earlier in the thread, when a 560MW generator went offline in Australia, Tesla's big battery only needed to inject 7.3MW into the grid to "help" bring the frequency back to normal.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Certainly. I think we have both made our respective points. I did though think that that article had it been published today would have qualified for inclusion as news as it related to a move in a green and ethical direction.

But care needs to be taken as to the motives of the move.

Are they changing direction because they accept that their product, though important and necessary, is also massively harmful, and that the price doesn't reflect the true costs?

Or are they making small changes as they want to maintain profits in the future, and know that they have too?

I'm more than happy to celebrate all moves by energy companies to a greener mix, and I'll happily pat them on the back for doing the right thing (for the wrong reasons), but I won't pretend that this is because they have the planet's best interests at heart.

If you really think share ownership can help, then a popular option is to own one share so you can raise issues and attend shareholder meetings.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Apology accepted. No one would have the time to challenge all your posts so I let a few go.:)

Fell free to use the ignore function, please ....... feel free.

And again, please feel free to spend your valueable time on here challenging the claims by GA that you say you don't agree with, since factless anti-RE comments need to be challenged, don't they(?), whilst wasting your time demanding I (and others) respect his opinions is a complete waste of your time and effort - I support RE, sorry.

I'll look forward to you challenging his remarks, perhaps you could start with the three I mentioned earlier.

Best of luck.

PS - I note that on this one occasion, what you've quoted doesn't exactly match what I posted. Are you doing something ...... unusual?

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

A lot

Also worth noting - the batteries don't need to deliver power for very long - just enough to shovel some more coal in at the coal fired power station, put 50p in the gas meter, press the button to raise the fuel rods, fire up the generator, whatever.

.......

The value of batteries in this scenario is their ability to respond very quickly, not their ability (or lack of!) to supply large amounts of power over a long period.

So the scenario is you buy batteries as part of your domestic solar installation and most of the time you charge them during the day for use overnight. In addition to this, you allow the national grid to use them (for a fee) in case the brown stuff hits the fan like it did yesterday.

To support what you've said, here's an extract from an article I posted elsewhere today:

Europe’s largest hybrid flywheel battery project to help grid respond to energy demand

The flywheel system will be capable of a peak power of 500kW and able to store 10kWh of energy.

So clearly the issue is power, not energy, since 500kW of power would drain a 10kWh store in 1/50th of an hour, or about 1 minute.

Hexane

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'll look forward to you challenging his remarks, perhaps you could start with the three I mentioned earlier.

Worth noting that a number of people on this forum have indicated that they consider it detrimental for people to quote and reply to comments from the poster in question, because so many have him on ignore and don't want to see his comments at all.

Ultimately we might have to accept that everyone is free to make their own decisions about who they quote and who they reply to. And avoid assumptions about their motiviations for doing so.

Martyn1981

Hexane wrote: »

Ultimately we might have to accept that everyone is free to make their own decisions about who they quote and who they reply to. And avoid assumptions about their motiviations for doing so.

Or perhaps raise assumptions as to their motivations for not doing so.

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Z

Model: Nuclear heating Vs electrifying heating (2/3rd heat pumps 1/3rd resistance)
500TWh nuclear heat Vs 300TWh electricity

Cost of generation.
0.75p for nuclear heat = £3.75 billion per year
5.5p for offshore wind power = £16.5 billion

Cost of transmission and distribution
?? For nuclear heat = unknown
11p for electricity (wholesale is 5.5p you pay 16.5p retail so 11p) reduce by 1/3rd as some grid infrastructure will be used at higher capacity = £22 billion

Cost of household infrastructure for 40 million heat systems
Electrified heating
Heat pumps over 20 years @ £6k, resistance heaters at £1k over 60 years = £8 billion + £0.22 billion
Nuclear hearting. Simple circulation pump system £1,000 o we 60 years 40 million units = £0.66 billion

Electrified heating = £16.5B (generation) + £22B (transmission & distribution) + £8.2 billion (cost of heat pumps and resistance heaters) + unknown cost to store and buffer wind power

Nuclear heating = £3.75B generation + £0.66B (cost of homeowner pumping system) + unknown cost of national heating distribution system.




Electrify heating = £46.7 billion per year + unknown cost per year to buffer wind power (hydrogen syn fuel or mountain sized batteries)

Nuclear heating = £4.4 billion per year + unknown cost per year for distribution grid

Really nuclear heat looks very promising Vs electrifying heating!!

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But care needs to be taken as to the motives of the move.

Are they changing direction because they accept that their product, though important and necessary, is also massively harmful, and that the price doesn't reflect the true costs?

Or are they making small changes as they want to maintain profits in the future, and know that they have too?

I'm more than happy to celebrate all moves by energy companies to a greener mix, and I'll happily pat them on the back for doing the right thing (for the wrong reasons), but I won't pretend that this is because they have the planet's best interests at heart.

If you really think share ownership can help, then a popular option is to own one share so you can raise issues and attend shareholder meetings.

I can respond to that if you wish, in fact I would quite like to, but we did agree to let you go see what the world of RE had to offer.