Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

2nd_time_buyer said:

Martyn1981 said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

Martyn1981 said:

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

My guess is that we could probably go to towards 80-90% RE before additional wind results in enough percent spill that it costs more per unit than HPC, subject to the proviso on gas fixed costs.  And of course once we start getting a lot of spill the economy will adjust to find uses for this 'free' energy such as storage, bit coin mining, export via inter connectors or whatever.

Are you sure, could we ever get to that point? With wind costs under £50/MWh and HPC at £107 (and inflationary uplift due in April), then HPC will soon be around 2.5x more expensive than wind, so for wind costs to equal HPC, you'd have to be using 40% of generation and wasting the other 60%.

With a good mix of RE sources, and storage I wonder what level of generation we will need, perhaps 150% of annual demand to allow for some spill and storage losses, but 250% for wind seems a tad excessive.

But it's an interesting thought exercise, and crucially depends on the scale (and efficiency) of longer term storage, such as CAES, LAES, H2. We'll also have to see how the rest of Europe addresses the issue, as it would be great if we could export excess, and import shortfalls, helping to minimise store capacity and losses.

Agree with your figures but I was suggesting 'marginal' new wind spilling 60% rather than average wind when RE penetration reaches 80-90% of overall generation - which is probably where we would be in 2030 if the govt targets for new RE are achieved.  I wonder if HPC will be generating by then?

But ...... I can't shake the feeling I'm fudging something, so if I am cheating it's not deliberate.

OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for flips sake, it's finally crawled its way from the back of my brain to the front / fingertips.

It's a trick question, not deliberately, but a trick question.

At what level of curtailment would new wind cost as much as HPC ..... it would never happen, because curtailment would, if fairly attributed to generation that can't economically demand follow (such as wind, PV and nuclear), push up the effective cost of HPC too. So if 20% of generation was being curtailed because of over supply (not transmission issues) then HPC too would get 20% more expensive in terms of cost to output, just like any existing or additional wind generation.

So curtailment in the future when FF's have been effectively pushed off the grid at any given time, because we have large amounts of RE, HPC is operational, and perhaps in the earlier examples, demand is low at that time, is akin to storage costs and should be applied fairly to all technologies that can't economically demand follow.

BTW, regarding the question about a timescale for HPC generation, I believe it was 2025 for the start of generation, with a target of 2027(ish) for the second reactor and full commissioning. However today's news has announced further delays and costs overruns, so 2026/28, perhaps?

As usual, top class commentary Martyn - you really should write a periodic article to the main MSE site to update the masses on the transition to RE.

In terms of more than intra-day storage. H2 generation using excess seems appealing for dumping energy. Do you know how feasible it is to store in vast quantities e.g. the equivalent of one months current gas supply?   

Hiya, Michaels posted some great storage info a few months ago. I remembered it because it got me thinking about H2 v's CAES* so see the following posts/discussion too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78891606/#Comment_78891606


*I thought it important because H2 and CAES if deployed on a vast scale, seem to compete with each other for storage solutions such as underground salt caverns. So the potential scale is simply staggering. LAES is more efficient, and is already being deployed/built out by Highview on a large scale, following smaller test sites in the UK. But LAES is designed for tank storage (as can H2 and CAES) so not the theoretical weeks and months of storage that H2/CAES could deploy.

I also recall a discussion further back in time, where there was a link/article setting out UK potential for H2/CAES storage, but I find the MSE search function now to be very unhelpful, used to be great.

Thank you, although I have to admit I had to look Up CAES (compressed air energy storage) and LAES (liquefied air energy storage). 

The higher energy density of H2 and the potential compatibility with existing gas networks and other uses makes me inclined to think that it has a lot of potential.

I wonder if we could reverse gas rigs to pump hydrogen back down into the ground to replace the gas?

Clearly you're not just a pretty face, check out my edit/addendum to the post that crossed with your reply.

And also sorry for the acronyms, it's really bad practice, and I must try to do it less.

Martyn1981

Some wind and storage contracts to help deal with curtailment and system faults and respond in millisecs. I don't pretend to fully understand all of these additional services, but I do get the impression that much is happening, and will continue to happen, to transition us from FF generation. In other words, the clever people are working on it.

Wind, storage win National Grid contracts

National Grid ESO has awarded contracts to maximise renewable generation and deliver consumer savings worth millions of pounds.

The deals will see 10 companies with 15 generating units, including wind farms and battery storage, to respond in 150 milliseconds to support system conditions when a network fault occurs.

They will be connected to constraint management equipment to maximise renewable generation on the system and reduce constraint costs across the key B6 English/Scottish border.

Initial estimates suggest savings of £20m to £40m could be delivered by the service.

Martyn1981

There's been pressure for some time to hold CfD auctions annually rather than biennial, but now suggestions to go to biannual. Not sure I could take the excitement, I watched and waited for months in 2017 for the results which were far better (cheaper offshore wind) than I expected, then even better again in 2019. 2021 results should be announced in a few months.

Just a ponder, but with the RE strike prices getting quite close to the (old) average wholesale price, thus reducing the net subsidy, I wonder if more auctions can take place now that the cost impact of new contracts on the subsidy pot is shrinking. Going back some, the Gov did explain that the much higher than expected capacity factors of the early (and very high subsidy) offshore wind contracts, plus the HPC commitment, meant that the subsidy pot was mostly accounted for, but the purse strings have since been loosened a bit. Plus the higher cf's (for offshore wind) led to cheaper subsequent bids as confidence grew.

'UK should hold CfD auctions every six months'

The UK government should introduce an additional emergency Contract for Difference (CfD) auction in the next six months and then regular six monthly CfD tenders as part of the upcoming Energy Security Strategy, according to the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA).

The six monthly auctions should have a clear rolling timetable and sufficient budget and simplified CfD contract to support smaller projects, REA said.

The call is part of several proposals made by REA ahead of the Energy Security Strategy announcement.

REA also said the strategy should address transmission and distribution grid capacity constraints to allow renewable projects to connect to the network faster.

“Our sector is clear: we stand ready for a mass rollout of small, medium and large-scale renewable developments if the Government are proactive in removing barriers and providing other catalysts.

“We could more than double the number of planned projects in the next two years and the number of jobs created would also increase by around two-thirds – the government must seize these immense opportunities.

2nd_time_buyer

Sounds a positive development

Once the CfD auction take place, are the bidders required to start construction within a certain period? I.e. is there a mechanism to stop companies bidding with no intention of developing to prevent others exploiting the sites?

I am just wondering whether having more auctions might not speed up development if there are more bottlenecks down the line.

Martyn1981

2nd_time_buyer said:

Sounds a positive development

Once the CfD auction take place, are the bidders required to start construction within a certain period? I.e. is there a mechanism to stop companies bidding with no intention of developing to prevent others exploiting the sites?

I am just wondering whether having more auctions might not speed up development if there are more bottlenecks down the line.

I think there are rules and regs, and the CfD auctions have time periods linked to them. I may be wrong but I think there are work start and final commissioning dates linked to each round, though the round's pot may be split over two time periods, typically with the later date getting lower bids (as costs fall). From memory I think the 2017 auction offshore wind prices differed by about £10/MWh for the two time periods it was split over.

Going way back to the start when PV was still 'allowed', there was a really silly loop hole - all winning bids, up to the pot limit, get the same CfD price as the most expensive winning bid, so several bids went in really low, so they'd win, but get the higher price of the highest winner. However, the plan backfired and the winners 'won' at too low a price, and had to withdraw, making the whole thing a bit of a ock up. The only penalty back then, believe it or not, was that the winning bidders couldn't re-submit that specific application for X years, but I think rules have tightened up over time.

gefnew

Hi some inventions here.
DIY energy: UK solar inventions could reduce bills - BBC News

Martyn1981

On the general theme of storage, thought I'd mention this scheme (in the US) as VPP's (virtual power plants) are a great and growing idea, where domestic/demand side (sometimes commercial) batteries are used in conjunction to help balance local grids. I think this has added benefits, since multiple beneficiaries (household, local grid, even local authority chasing carbon targets) can be involved and share some of the costs. This example of 100 homes with 20kWh batts is quite small, but it all helps.

Enphase Energy supplying storage system for Vermont utility VPP program

Microinverter supplier Enphase Energy has been selected by US utility Green Mountain Power (GMP) to supply its home battery system for a virtual power plant (VPP) programme.

The programme offers GMP customers the option of leasing the storage system, buying one outright or enrolling an existing system. In both cases, the programme will require customers to agree to share access to their batteries to help the grid during periods of peak demand.

Under the lease agreement, Enphase will supply 100 eligible GMP customers with two Enphase IQ Battery 10 units for ten years for either US$65 per month or a single payment of US$6,500 (excluding installation costs).

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

On the general theme of storage, thought I'd mention this scheme (in the US) as VPP's (virtual power plants) are a great and growing idea, where domestic/demand side (sometimes commercial) batteries are used in conjunction to help balance local grids. I think this has added benefits, since multiple beneficiaries (household, local grid, even local authority chasing carbon targets) can be involved and share some of the costs. This example of 100 homes with 20kWh batts is quite small, but it all helps.

Enphase Energy supplying storage system for Vermont utility VPP program

Microinverter supplier Enphase Energy has been selected by US utility Green Mountain Power (GMP) to supply its home battery system for a virtual power plant (VPP) programme.

The programme offers GMP customers the option of leasing the storage system, buying one outright or enrolling an existing system. In both cases, the programme will require customers to agree to share access to their batteries to help the grid during periods of peak demand.

Under the lease agreement, Enphase will supply 100 eligible GMP customers with two Enphase IQ Battery 10 units for ten years for either US$65 per month or a single payment of US$6,500 (excluding installation costs).

How much of a discount is 6.5k usd for 20Kwh excluding installation?!

QrizB

Rather a negative view of blending hydrogen into natural gas from a US think-tank:

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/hydrogen-blending-will-raise-consumer-costs-and-risk-public-health-while-barely-reducing-emissions-us-think-tank/2-1-1193416

Proposals across the US to blend hydrogen with natural gas should be treated with scepticism by regulators and policymakers as the practice is highly inefficient, does little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and could even slow the energy transition — while increasing consumer costs and risking public health and safety, according to non-partisan energy and climate think-tank Energy Innovation.

Claims that hydrogen can help decarbonise the heating of buildings or the power sector, or cut consumer costs by using existing natural-gas infrastructure, are simply not true, says the San Francisco-based organisation in a new report entitled Hydrogen Proposals: Considerations for State Utility Regulators and Policymakers.

More at the link.

Coastalwatch

QrizB said:

Rather a negative view of blending hydrogen into natural gas from a US think-tank:

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/hydrogen-blending-will-raise-consumer-costs-and-risk-public-health-while-barely-reducing-emissions-us-think-tank/2-1-1193416

Proposals across the US to blend hydrogen with natural gas should be treated with scepticism by regulators and policymakers as the practice is highly inefficient, does little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and could even slow the energy transition — while increasing consumer costs and risking public health and safety, according to non-partisan energy and climate think-tank Energy Innovation.

Claims that hydrogen can help decarbonise the heating of buildings or the power sector, or cut consumer costs by using existing natural-gas infrastructure, are simply not true, says the San Francisco-based organisation in a new report entitled Hydrogen Proposals: Considerations for State Utility Regulators and Policymakers.

More at the link.

Not surprised as I've yet to see any proposal come up with a cost effective means of producing and delivering it. As stated often in the past it makes no sense from either a financial or emissions aspect so in my limited understanding of matters serves only to take much need resource away from the clean sources and storage required if we are to avoid the worst effects of AGW.