Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking that the grid voltage or frequency will rise up to a certain limit - but if there is still too much power and the generator can’t be shut down quickly where does that power go?

With the National Grid in place presumably power can be moved around so there isn’t an excess condition in anyone place and the situation should be avoided but in the very short term can a situation arise where there is just too much power for the grid - is there a way to just dump this power to earth?

Mikey's response is excellent, though one caveat, I think the wind curtailment comments relate more to small scale WT's. The big boys can simply have the nacelles turned to a less/non optimal direction, and the blades rotated so they effectively stop resisting the wind.

This makes them an ideal choice for curtailment (when the Grid is getting too much generation), as they can also power back up very quickly.

[Edit - sorry Z, I did read the thread but I must have incurred a rogue mouse wheel spin past your post on this. M.]


There are lots and lots of side issues. You raise frequency, and yes, absolutely, that can rise, as can voltage. Our PV inverters (depending on age) should shutdown when grid voltage rises to 253V, since they 'pump' leccy out at a slightly higher voltage to get it out the house - that's an appalling explanation, but hopefully makes sense.

I'm not sure if ours do (yet), but German PV inverters also respond to frequency, as again, on a sunny day, maybe a quiet Sunday afternoon when demand drops, lots of PV could tip things over the edge.


And on to another issue, rotational mass + frequency. Again I understand none of this, so only parroting what I've read/heard, but the enormous mass of the steam turbine generators at thermal plants (coal, gas, nuclear) help to maintain frequency. So as they go, or less are on line, something needs to be done for frequency requlation.

ESO formerly part of The National Grid recently produced a report on the plans to make the grid capable of operating at 100% zero carbon supply by 2025.

But crucially, this isn't because they believe we'll be at 100%, or may even hit 100% for brief periods by then, but to ensure that it can be operated under those conditions:-

Zero carbon operation of Great Britain’s electricity system by 2025


I'm going to assume that there are many, many more issues like this, though I think batts are good for frequency control, and recent auctions have seen batts winning against gas for frequency regulation.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Interesting, however the capital cost of storage ($20/kWh) would be highly questionable as it's value is directly related to cost plus cycles as opposed to cost alone ....

Think about it as being kinetic energy recovery to storage (battery/capacitor) in an electric or hybrid vehicle ... the additional capital cost of the storage solution may be high, but in terms of additional cost per cycle would be heavily diluted by the number of potential cycles per journey ... at the other end of the scale we may have a pumped hydro system for which a full cycle may be represented in days or even weeks (think Dinorwig etc!) ...

HTH
Z

I have to say, that threw me completely too - not what you said, but the issue you raise, as cost of deployed storage per kWh seems almost irrelevant.

I mentioned a long while back on the battery thread, that I'm concerned about payback (and misleading anyone reading my comments) as the costs involved are so high, but that as I base my calcs on warrantied cycles*, an improvement in them changes the economics. Such as upping the cycles from 5,000 to 10,000 might not change the price at all, but halves the cost of storage.

*I openly admit that warrantied cycles will almost certainly be bettered, but leave that cost calc to others so as not to accidentally mislead anyone since we really don't enough yet about how these stationary batts will operate over time - though I am secretly quite optimistic.

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Interesting, however the capital cost of storage ($20/kWh) would be highly questionable as it's value is directly related to cost plus cycles as opposed to cost alone ....
Z

We are more likely to mass build interconntors and overbuild wind turbines (at the farm level) as curtailment of excess will be cheaper than storage.

Storage becomes a huge issue if you electrify heating as you will need seasonal storage
But if you use nuclear heating then there is no huge storage challenge

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I have to say, that threw me completely too - not what you said, but the issue you raise, as cost of deployed storage per kWh seems almost irrelevant.

I mentioned a long while back on the battery thread, that I'm concerned about payback (and misleading anyone reading my comments) as the costs involved are so high, but that as I base my calcs on warrantied cycles*, an improvement in them changes the economics. Such as upping the cycles from 5,000 to 10,000 might not change the price at all, but halves the cost of storage.

*I openly admit that warrantied cycles will almost certainly be bettered, but leave that cost calc to others so as not to accidentally mislead anyone since we really don't enough yet about how these stationary batts will operate over time - though I am secretly quite optimistic.

But seasonal storage is only one cycle per year!!
A 30 year life system used for seasonal storage will only be discharged 30 times in its life

Even if costs fall to $100/KWh that is a cost in excess of $3.30 per KWh actually probably closer to twice that level as you have land labor maintenance and all sorts of other costs. Seasonal storage for electricity outside of hydropower is impossible

Battery Storage will work okay for daily storage of solar or maybe even weekly storage of wind power but not seasonal storage necessary for heating if you electrify heating

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Don't worry it'll all blow over soon (pun intended). With an offence based on 'respect the opinions I don't agree with and even mock openly', it's only a matter of time before 'they' give up.

The recent attempt to pretend that I don't think people have a right to an opinion, as opposed to my refusal to respect some stated opinions, means we are getting near to the 'desperation' stage that typically preempts the end.

As I've posted many times, 'Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.'

Just when I was hoping things were getting a bit more sensible you resurrect the “we” and “they” division. Is that some sort of paranoia?

The title of this thread is “Green, ethical, energy issues in the news” - your commas not mine. The thread is therefore open for discussion of green and/or ethical and/or energy issues in the news; not just green energy or ethical energy.

Inevitably with such wide scope there will be huge potential for differing views and I would consider it extremely unlikely that any two people will hold identical views on green issues, ethical issues and energy issues.

For instance, I consider myself to be green because I plant trees, appreciate the natural environment (without wind farms), preserve habitats on my own land for birds, mammals and wildlife, use renewable energy where it is economic for me to do so, wash out my plastic bags and reuse them, run cars which emit very low levels of CO2 (because it is cheaper road tax than running a dirty car), have solar panels and ASHPs, save energy wherever possible and spend my holidays walking (and riding on steam trains). I don’t burn coal at home but I do burn wood I have grown myself. Yet someone else who is, say, vegan and uses public transport might feel strongly I should not ride on steam trains or eat meat because of AGW and should use public transport but share my views on caring for the natural world, onshore wind farms, using sustainable fuel etc.

So in that situation some things we do agree on and some things we don’t and I think you will find that’s the case even with your wife or best friend not just me or GA or Nick. Harmony at home, in the pub or on a forum depends on our understanding that the other party might see some things differently to you but on others agree.

It doesn’t help to put labels on people as it not only alienates them but locks one into a view of that person that you can never undo without a huge loss of face. It also polarises attitudes and other people who might be largely supportive of you then cannot agree on anything with the other person as they don’t want to offend you. (For “you” read “anybody”). Thus we end up with two sides just as in the Brexit debate that can never come together.

Last year when I first came across this MSE forum I thought it was a wonderful source of information and help., largely because of your contribution. Anyone coming across it now will just see us as a bunch of bickering losers trying to score points off each other.

While I am sure you will see it differently a lot of the divisiveness on here has arisen as a result of a long standing dispute you have perpetuated with GA, and subsequently anyone who agreed with him, which has split the contributors down the middle.

None of us are blameless as it is our choice to post but it is your thread; I don’t think perpetuating divisions as you are wont on doing is the way forward so you might want to consider closing it or getting it back on track with some statesman like leadership.

Ken

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I have to say, that threw me completely too - not what you said, but the issue you raise, as cost of deployed storage per kWh seems almost irrelevant.

I mentioned a long while back on the battery thread, that I'm concerned about payback (and misleading anyone reading my comments) as the costs involved are so high, but that as I base my calcs on warrantied cycles*, an improvement in them changes the economics. Such as upping the cycles from 5,000 to 10,000 might not change the price at all, but halves the cost of storage.

*I openly admit that warrantied cycles will almost certainly be bettered, but leave that cost calc to others so as not to accidentally mislead anyone since we really don't enough yet about how these stationary batts will operate over time - though I am secretly quite optimistic.

Hi

As we've already seen reports of power & storage provision projects involving long term contracts for electricity supplied directly from 400MWp PV at ~$0.02/kWh with an on-cost of $0.013/kWh (3.3cents total!) for supply via storage (200MW supply/800MWh storage) starting to appear, then the cost viability of storage has already been established on a commercial basis ....

Effectively, 1.3cents/kWh for the storage element places the $20/kWh in capital as requiring around 1500cycles over the contracted purchase agreement (25years), which would tend to convey that the amortised capital cost would exceed the $20 mentioned in the article by a considerable degree ... however, wholesale energy supply from storage at anywhere near 3.3cents looks remarkably competitive against USA average nuclear generation costs of ~$0.06/kWh (~$0.04 for capital & fuel plus ~$0.02 for operations) (Source update June 2019) ...

... the alternative way to cost storage relative to (say) nuclear would simply involve base amortised supply cost for each source of (6-2cents), so $40/MWh of the equivalent nuclear supply could be allocated to whatever storage technology is required, which is considerably higher (3x!) than the $13 currently being contracted for batteries in California .... no wonder they're considering the RE solution!

HTH
Z

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

As we've already seen reports of power & storage provision projects involving long term contracts for electricity supplied directly from 400MWp PV at ~$0.02/kWh with an on-cost of $0.013/kWh (3.3cents total!) for supply via storage (200MW supply/800MWh storage) starting to appear, then the cost viability of storage has already been established on a commercial basis ....

Effectively, 1.3cents/kWh for the storage element places the $20/kWh in capital as requiring around 1500cycles over the contracted purchase agreement (25years), which would tend to convey that the amortised capital cost would exceed the $20 mentioned in the article by a considerable degree ... however, wholesale energy supply from storage at anywhere near 3.3cents looks remarkably competitive against USA average nuclear generation costs of ~$0.06/kWh (~$0.04 for capital & fuel plus ~$0.02 for operations) (Source update June 2019) ...

... the alternative way to cost storage relative to (say) nuclear would simply involve base amortised supply cost for each source of (6-2cents), so $40/MWh of the equivalent nuclear supply could be allocated to whatever storage technology is required, which is considerably higher (3x!) than the $13 currently being contracted for batteries in California .... no wonder they're considering the RE solution!

HTH
Z

Solar too cheap to meter !!

Every time you read a renewables propaganda piece ask yourself this question, when the subsidy is removed why does installation levels crash?

The answer is obvious, The articles about $0.02/kWh solar are propaganda and fake news (fake accounting). And if they are not fake news you should be crying to your government representatives to stop any and all subsidy because it's just cream from this point when solar is only $0.02/kWh right!!?!!

ABrass

Subsidy free solar farms, suffering from NIMBYism. I love the quite complaining about the humming from the inverters...

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/faversham/news/david-v-goliath-fight-to-stop-uks-biggest-solar-park-205569/

markin

I wish they would simply say how much power it makes.

"Viessmann will launch its new Vitovalor PT2 fuel cell micro combined heat and power (mCHP) boiler at this year's Installer2019, May 7-9 "





"Under the new, stricter EU energy labelling scale, which comes into force in October 2019, Vitovalor PT2 will have the highest possible Energy-related Product (ErP) rating of A+++. This corresponds to an annual seasonal efficiency of up to 192%, making it a serious alternative to heat pump systems. Not only is the Vitovalor easier than a heat pump to add to an existing heating system, it has a 40,000 kWh heat load demand, double that of an air source heat pump, and generates electricity as well as heat. It can generate enough electricity to cover the basic demands of an average household, save up to 40% of household energy consumption and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 30% compared to separate heat and power generation.
Darren McMahon, Viessmann Marketing Director, commented, “This is Viessmann’s third fuel cell product in less than five years, reflecting the investment by Viessmann in this technology. Over 2,000 units were installed in Europe last year. Vitovalor PT2 has even higher levels of efficiency and is super-easy to install and operate, making it more attractive to a growing installer base and to customers. We're anticipating a great deal of interest in this new product.”


Now with fully-integrated hydraulics and a footprint of just 0.72m2, the new Vitovalor comes in pre-assembled modules that are exceptionally easy to install. The unit includes a 220-litre integrated stainless steel hot water cylinder that replaces its predecessor’s 45-litre cylinder. This makes it more suitable for larger properties. The new Vitovalor is now available in four heating outputs – 11, 19, 25 and 30 kW.
The Vitovalor PT2 is equipped with Viessmann’s brand new E3 control platform, which provides faster and more reliable communications between the end-user, installer and Viessmann. The system is quicker to assemble thanks to fewer flue and pipe connections."


https://www.viessmann.co.uk/press/current-topics/pt2

GreatApe

markin wrote: »

I wish they would simply say how much power it makes.

"Viessmann will launch its new Vitovalor PT2 fuel cell micro combined heat and power (mCHP) boiler at this year's Installer2019, May 7-9 "


"Under the new, stricter EU energy labelling scale, which comes into force in October 2019, Vitovalor PT2 will have the highest possible Energy-related Product (ErP) rating of A+++. This corresponds to an annual seasonal efficiency of up to 192%, making it a serious alternative to heat pump systems. Not only is the Vitovalor easier than a heat pump to add to an existing heating system, it has a 40,000 kWh heat load demand, double that of an air source heat pump, and generates electricity as well as heat. It can generate enough electricity to cover the basic demands of an average household, save up to 40% of household energy consumption and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 30% compared to separate heat and power generation.
Darren McMahon, Viessmann Marketing Director, commented, “This is Viessmann’s third fuel cell product in less than five years, reflecting the investment by Viessmann in this technology. Over 2,000 units were installed in Europe last year. Vitovalor PT2 has even higher levels of efficiency and is super-easy to install and operate, making it more attractive to a growing installer base and to customers. We're anticipating a great deal of interest in this new product.”

Now with fully-integrated hydraulics and a footprint of just 0.72m2, the new Vitovalor comes in pre-assembled modules that are exceptionally easy to install. The unit includes a 220-litre integrated stainless steel hot water cylinder that replaces its predecessor’s 45-litre cylinder. This makes it more suitable for larger properties. The new Vitovalor is now available in four heating outputs – 11, 19, 25 and 30 kW.
The Vitovalor PT2 is equipped with Viessmann’s brand new E3 control platform, which provides faster and more reliable communications between the end-user, installer and Viessmann. The system is quicker to assemble thanks to fewer flue and pipe connections."

https://www.viessmann.co.uk/press/current-topics/pt2

These may have made sense when the grid was dirty but soon the grid will be very clean so any electricity generated by these will in comparison be dirty

Some of these distributed small scale energy propaganda remind me of Mao Zedong backyard furnaces