Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

2nd_time_buyer

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

CfD round 4 results are out, and good news, 7GW* of offshore wind at slightly less than round 3 (£37.35, v's £39.65). These are 2012 baseline prices, so today, around £45, v's the round 3 price ~£48.

[*Edit - 7GW of offshore wind at a capacity factor of 50%, is roughly equal to 10% of current leccy demand, so a very significant figure considering the CfD's take place roughly every 2yrs. M.]

Bit disappointed with on-shore wind and PV at £42.47 (0.9GW) & £45.99 (2GW) (again 2012 baseline), hoped for 10%+ cheaper.


Contracts for Difference Allocation Round 4 results

Thanks Martyn.  Interesting that onshore wind needs more 'subsidy' than offshore.

Not sure what the volumes mean in context?

Current capacity of wind power is of order 25GW?  But we already have a pipeline of projects under previous CFD rounds?  Not sure how big or when for.  Plus google says there is an 88GW pipeline?

Are wind farms also being built without CFD support?

Just being lazy as I need to run, but for context, if we assume we are at about 50% RE this year*, and we need to get to 80% by 2030 to meet the UK target of 100%(net) low carbon generation**, then we need +30%. The round 3 offshore wind approvals of 5.5GW for 2023/24 would at a cf of 50% be equal to about 8% of demand, then we have this round at about 10%, so if we go slightly bigger in round 5 for 2028/29 delivery of 12%, then we have a total (admittedly made up by me) of +30%.

Of course we may see an increase in demand of 10-15% as we slowly transition to BEV's and heatpumps, but increased demand would lead to increased rollout, as generators and suppliers will want to sell us more leccy.

After that we need to expand to meet growing demand and ageing out nuclear, but that's just a demand and supply story like any other. Probably slowly doubling our leccy demand and supply from 2030 through 2050.

Hope that makes some sort of sense! Also, obviously I've only played with offshore wind here .... for now.


*I'm guessing because we got to about 40% in 2019, jumped up in 2020 but of course demand fell due to covid, then we had a bad wind year in 2021, so I'm not sure where we are exactly now, or if the rough +3.5%pa expansion is still true, as 3yrs of weirdness have impacted results.

**We have about 20% from nuclear, with I think 1/3rd ageing out this decade, so 7%, but hopefully HPC at 7% coming on line in 2028(ish).

I suspect we may be under estimating the growth of solar. There has been a significant uptick in installations over the last year or so. If it continues, it will make a significant dent by the end of the decade.

Martyn1981

2nd_time_buyer said:

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

CfD round 4 results are out, and good news, 7GW* of offshore wind at slightly less than round 3 (£37.35, v's £39.65). These are 2012 baseline prices, so today, around £45, v's the round 3 price ~£48.

[*Edit - 7GW of offshore wind at a capacity factor of 50%, is roughly equal to 10% of current leccy demand, so a very significant figure considering the CfD's take place roughly every 2yrs. M.]

Bit disappointed with on-shore wind and PV at £42.47 (0.9GW) & £45.99 (2GW) (again 2012 baseline), hoped for 10%+ cheaper.


Contracts for Difference Allocation Round 4 results

Thanks Martyn.  Interesting that onshore wind needs more 'subsidy' than offshore.

Not sure what the volumes mean in context?

Current capacity of wind power is of order 25GW?  But we already have a pipeline of projects under previous CFD rounds?  Not sure how big or when for.  Plus google says there is an 88GW pipeline?

Are wind farms also being built without CFD support?

Just being lazy as I need to run, but for context, if we assume we are at about 50% RE this year*, and we need to get to 80% by 2030 to meet the UK target of 100%(net) low carbon generation**, then we need +30%. The round 3 offshore wind approvals of 5.5GW for 2023/24 would at a cf of 50% be equal to about 8% of demand, then we have this round at about 10%, so if we go slightly bigger in round 5 for 2028/29 delivery of 12%, then we have a total (admittedly made up by me) of +30%.

Of course we may see an increase in demand of 10-15% as we slowly transition to BEV's and heatpumps, but increased demand would lead to increased rollout, as generators and suppliers will want to sell us more leccy.

After that we need to expand to meet growing demand and ageing out nuclear, but that's just a demand and supply story like any other. Probably slowly doubling our leccy demand and supply from 2030 through 2050.

Hope that makes some sort of sense! Also, obviously I've only played with offshore wind here .... for now.


*I'm guessing because we got to about 40% in 2019, jumped up in 2020 but of course demand fell due to covid, then we had a bad wind year in 2021, so I'm not sure where we are exactly now, or if the rough +3.5%pa expansion is still true, as 3yrs of weirdness have impacted results.

**We have about 20% from nuclear, with I think 1/3rd ageing out this decade, so 7%, but hopefully HPC at 7% coming on line in 2028(ish).

I suspect we may be under estimating the growth of solar. There has been a significant uptick in installations over the last year or so. If it continues, it will make a significant dent by the end of the decade.

Yes, and you've reminded me about a PV 'biggie', the Moroccan project, which is 3.6GW with a target date of 2027 (assuming it all goes ahead).

So, for fun, let's say we are at 50% RE this year, and need to get to 80% by 2030, and BEV's and heatpumps push demand up (by 2030) by 10-15%:
Then we have +8% from the CfD round 3 being built, +10% from this round 4, assume +12% from a round 5 for 2028/29 delivery, and the Morocco project at about +7% (technically it's about +10, but it will run at a lower rate at night, so I'm guesstimating). Just those parts get us to about 107% (including nuclear), v's 110-115% by 2030 to be net 100% low carbon. So looking really positive.

On top of course we have the CfD PV and onshore wind, plus all of the other CfD projects, plus all of the supply and demand side schemes (like domestic PV) that aren't in the CfD figures.

I'm feeling nervously positive. I hope the 2022 RE share isn't way under my 50% guess, but even if 45%, that still looks like we are on target.

QrizB

Martyn1981 said:

I'm feeling nervously positive. I hope the 2022 RE share isn't way under my 50% guess, but even if 45%, that still looks like we are on target.

It's all *this* (waves hand at previous post) which makes me think the current surge in energy prices is transitory. Yes it might last a couple of years but there's enough generation capacity (renewables & HPC) in the pipeline already, and expecting to sell for less than 10p/kWh wholesale, that prices really should fall.

I know opinions are divided, but then again if anyone had said in the summer of 2020 that we'd be looking at paying over 40p/kWh for electricity in the winter of 2022 thay'd have been laughed off the forum.

So don't go basing your ROI calculations on current prices. It's nice to have it in the short term (and I'm a Ripple WT2 member, so I'm hoping to benefit in 2024) but in the longer term prices are almost certain to drop back significantly.

Martyn1981

For anyone following the gravity based storage ideas, this vid from 'Just Have a Think', gives an update on changes and progress.

Gravity Energy Storage. Who's right and who's wrong?

Gravity energy storage has real potential to provide cheap reliable grid balancing electricity to compliment the ever growing volume of intermittent renewables on our power grids, but only if it's done in the right way. Two companies, Energy Vault and Gravitricity have both taken radically different approaches to the problem. So, who will come out on top?

Edit - I'll add in this article, though not relevant to the vid, since it looks at using mines for pumped hydro storage.

Converting Mines Into Hydro-Powered Batteries

A group of researchers at Michigan Technological University (MTU) argues that a fully renewable energy grid could be achieved if the US converted mines into hydro-powered batteries. Such mines could clear the path for the “most ambitious” renewable energy goals in much of the country.

The PUSH study focuses on a decommissioned iron ore mine in Negaunee, Michigan, but it doesn’t stop there. Drawing on data collected, the team extends the results to consider the applicability of PUSH on a national scale.

Funded by a grant from the Arthur P. Sloan Foundation, the KETL team explores the potential of adapting a derelict mine in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (UP) into an energy storage facility. Michigan’s UP has copper and iron mining ranges filled with abandoned mines, which present ecological and economic challenges. The researchers found 968 suitable mines, mostly in the west and in the Upper Peninsula, using a government database. Several of these mines are very large, giving them enormous energy potential as batteries for the electrical grid.

zeupater

Martyn1981 said:

For anyone following the gravity based storage ideas, this vid from 'Just Have a Think', gives an update on changes and progress.

Gravity Energy Storage. Who's right and who's wrong?

Gravity energy storage has real potential to provide cheap reliable grid balancing electricity to compliment the ever growing volume of intermittent renewables on our power grids, but only if it's done in the right way. Two companies, Energy Vault and Gravitricity have both taken radically different approaches to the problem. So, who will come out on top?

Edit - I'll add in this article, though not relevant to the vid, since it looks at using mines for pumped hydro storage.

Converting Mines Into Hydro-Powered Batteries

A group of researchers at Michigan Technological University (MTU) argues that a fully renewable energy grid could be achieved if the US converted mines into hydro-powered batteries. Such mines could clear the path for the “most ambitious” renewable energy goals in much of the country.

The PUSH study focuses on a decommissioned iron ore mine in Negaunee, Michigan, but it doesn’t stop there. Drawing on data collected, the team extends the results to consider the applicability of PUSH on a national scale.

Funded by a grant from the Arthur P. Sloan Foundation, the KETL team explores the potential of adapting a derelict mine in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (UP) into an energy storage facility. Michigan’s UP has copper and iron mining ranges filled with abandoned mines, which present ecological and economic challenges. The researchers found 968 suitable mines, mostly in the west and in the Upper Peninsula, using a government database. Several of these mines are very large, giving them enormous energy potential as batteries for the electrical grid.

Hi

Thought we'd looked into the potential (note the pun!) behind this years ago .... so back to the basic physics (again!) before everyone (/anyone?) becomes excited that this would be a storage panacea (yet again!) ..

Emotions away, it's time for physics & some logic, so to the concept ... Gravitational energy storage through height difference is known as 'Potential Energy' and the formula is simple .... PE=Mgh ... where M=mass(kg), g=gravitational constant on earth(9.8m per second2) and h=difference in height that the mass is raised (metres)

Example ... 100tonnes raised 100metres = 100000*9.8*100 = 27.222kWh of energy potential. 

That's a pretty scarily low number for storage, so 'for fun', let's put the equivalent of one of the navy's 60,000tonne aircraft carriers on a 'rope' at the top of the deepest mineshaft in the UK (1400m) and we get ... 60000000*9.8*1400=228666.7kWh ... so 228.7MWh of potential ... that's before attributing mechanical losses etc .... yes, bit of an outlier as a concept, but leaving all of the engineering issues aside, it delivers a much bigger number, thus proving the concept as a storage panacea because it's a 'big' number ... but hold on ... gridwatch is currently showing demand at ~35GW .... wouldn't that mean that something the displacement of HMS Queen Elizabeth dangling on a rope nearly 1 mile above the ground would only store enough energy to power the grid on a pretty average summer's afternoon for for a little over 23 seconds ((228.7/35000)*3600) ... oh dear, probably just about enough to help balance the grid for a few seconds in a 'sticky' situation, but act as a serious storage solution? ... likely not! - and that's probably what the presenter of 'just have a think' was referring to when mentioning all of the comments they'd received after their previous video ... perhaps some of the audience did, unlike many of the target audience, actually 'just have a think' and that thought was ... hold on a minute, this is pretty illogical as a national storage medium as there simply aren't enough deep enough holes to accommodate ...

Isn't reality of logic so depressing ...   ... but, in a nutshell, isn't placing emotion & hope above science, logic & reasoning the root cause behind the awful state we currently find ourselves in ?? ... 

HTH - Z

#Edit -'the'

Martyn1981

Hiya Z, not a hill I have any interest in dying on, but isn't the Gravitricity idea viable, simply if it can beat batteries on cost? We'll need lots of storage solutions, so one's with 100's of kWh's, or a few MWh's will all help.

Using your numbers there, and entering 12,000tonnes, at 500m (so 60 (12x5) times more) gives 1.6MWh, [edit - Oops, should have been 16MWh] which seems OK, if cheap enough (big 'IF' I appreciate). However, I fully take on board your reality check, as that's half of one Tesla Megapack (3MWh), and apparently they have about 300 to 500 outside their Nevada Gigafactory ready for some lucky person (or three). [Edit - as above, actually equal to 5 Tesla Megapacks.]

The other side though is fast frequency response. The 'giant' flywheel costing £4m, deployed to help stabilise the UK / Ireland interconnector is only 20kWh, but can supply 1MW.

Another thing I like about the Gravitricity idea, is the use of multiple weights. So they can go up to one 5,000t weight, but another design is to use 24 x 500t weights, so they can stack them at the top (or bottom) in response to excess / shortage of energy. Effectively using the same hole over and over, which I think is akin to a flow battery, where you have the base unit for charge and discharge, but can add larger tanks of fluid to increase the energy.

What I do find odd, is the idea that they may expand into building (digging?) their own holes if necessary. I'd assumed the benefits of this idea was to utilise existing infrastructure.

Overall, however, I do share your concerns regarding total energy, this isn't going to deliver a lot of energy, regardless of hopes and wishes. Oh well.

QrizB

zeupater said:

Thought we'd looked into the potential (note the pun!) behind this years ago .... so back to the basic physics (again!) before everyone (/anyone?) becomes excited that this would be a storage panacea (yet again!) .....

Isn't reality of logic so depressing ...   ... but, in a nutshell, isn't placing emotion & hope above science, logic & reasoning the root cause behind the awful state we currently find ourselves in ?? ... 

HTH - Z

and

Martyn1981 said:

Hiya Z, not a hill I have any interest in dying on, but isn't the Gravitricity idea viable, simply if it can beat batteries on cost? We'll need lots of storage solutions, so one's with 100's of kWh's, or a few MWh's will all help.

From Gravitricity's viseo, it seems they are interested in the "fast frequency response" grid-stability market. This doesn't need huge amounts of stored energy but I think it does need quick response times and relatively high-but-short-duration output power. I can see a market opening for them at the moment, but don't know how long it will be until there's, of, say a GWh of battery-backed storage available that can respond at the speed of semiconductors and make them obsolete.

I think this is the same market that Tesla Powerwalls are used for, on the Tesla Energy Plan.

zeupater

QrizB said:

zeupater said:

Thought we'd looked into the potential (note the pun!) behind this years ago .... so back to the basic physics (again!) before everyone (/anyone?) becomes excited that this would be a storage panacea (yet again!) .....

Isn't reality of logic so depressing ...   ... but, in a nutshell, isn't placing emotion & hope above science, logic & reasoning the root cause behind the awful state we currently find ourselves in ?? ... 

HTH - Z

and

Martyn1981 said:

Hiya Z, not a hill I have any interest in dying on, but isn't the Gravitricity idea viable, simply if it can beat batteries on cost? We'll need lots of storage solutions, so one's with 100's of kWh's, or a few MWh's will all help.

From Gravitricity's viseo, it seems they are interested in the "fast frequency response" grid-stability market. This doesn't need huge amounts of stored energy but I think it does need quick response times and relatively high-but-short-duration output power. I can see a market opening for them at the moment, but don't know how long it will be until there's, of, say a GWh of battery-backed storage available that can respond at the speed of semiconductors and make them obsolete.

I think this is the same market that Tesla Powerwalls are used for, on the Tesla Energy Plan.

Hi

Tend to agree, and that's what the 'aircraft carrier' logic is meant to convey - the actual scale of what;'s involved.... however, the referenced 'just have a think' video not only talks about frequency response, but also intermittent generation backup storage capacity of ~2 to ~8 hours in multiple (say)~5mx500m shafts with ~500tonne configurable weights, which describes a ridiculous number of shafts (~330) being required to equate to an aircraft carrier at 1400m yet still only providing a few seconds of storage.

The issue is one of context ... yes, it works & it's possible & no, nobody seriously thinks that an aircraft carrier lowered down the UK's deepest mine is the solution ... but the context is the required scale to achieve what the video seems to skip .... how many tens of thousands of shafts would be required to cope with what level of intermittence to almost guarantee continuity of supply .... in terms of the solution the video conveys - that's the context, that's the point.  

Now, if only there was a schedulable energy generation solution which could mitigate much of the intermittency inherent in wind & solar systems and focus was provided on that first, maybe we could make progress, target locations of strategic storage and save on unnecessary duplication ...

HTH - Z

Martyn1981

Thanks Z, it's fun to put it all into focus. I do still think that if it's cost competitive, then a 16MWh facility (500m depth with 12,000t weight) is worthwhile, especially with the FFR potential.

However, news today kinda mocks the above, with plans for a VPP (virtual power plant) in California, utilising 25k domestic Powerwalls. So, at say 5kWh from each battery, that's 125MWh.

[And V2G would be in the GWh's, possibly 100's GWH's.

25,000 PG&E & Tesla Customers Invited To Form World’s Largest Distributed Battery To Support Electric Grid Reliability

OAKLAND, California — Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Tesla Inc. have launched a new pilot program that creates a virtual power plant, to help support electric grid reliability and save customers money.

On June 22, Tesla invited approximately 25,000 PG&E customers with Powerwalls to join the VPP and help form the world’s largest distributed battery. In the first two weeks of the new program, more than 3,000 customers have expressed interest in enrolling, with more than 1,500 customers officially in the program.

Coastalwatch

I received notification this morning from the Seedrs investment platform with a reference to the MPS website so have linked from there. I wasn't previously aware that CFD's were to be awarded annually so thought worth posting on here knowing it's been one of Mart's desires for some time.

While floating offshore energy generation may not be everyones favourite it is another option along the way. IF tidal energy can benefit from annual CFD's to develop on a similar path to wind and solar then another small step towards energy security could emerge. After all we know the energy exists, we just have to learn how to harness it reliably and by cost effective means. Not unlike the X-Link project which is due to deliver energy of GW's scale direct from Africa in circa 2027.

UK To Hold Yearly Contracts For Difference Auctions From Next Year Onwards

Marine Power Systems is delighted to see the UK Government is hitting the accelerator on low-cost renewable power. The auctions for funding through the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme will be run every year rather than every two years from March 2023 onwards.

The move will speed up the UK adoption of MPS devices and other renewable power technologies, accelerate the pathway to net zero and boost energy security. The more we can generate clean, cost effective and secure power at home the less we will be exposed to expensive gas prices set by international markets.

Through running more frequent auctions it is expected that more projects will have the opportunity to compete for revenue support, increasing the pace of technology development. Increasing the level of certainty will serve to accelerate Marine Power Systems installed capacity and deliver economies of scale to further drive down the cost of energy. A more consistent and predictable deployment of floating offshore wind projects will be established, increasing investor and supply chain confidence in the sector as a whole.

The recent ScotWind auction provides a clear indication around what the future might hold for UK offshore wind. One of the biggest auctions of its kind in the world, it will bring a further 25GW of offshore wind to Scottish Waters. Importantly for Marine Power Systems, around 15GW of the 25GW of capacity development will be delivered through floating offshore wind.

https://www.marinepowersystems.co.uk/uk-to-hold-yearly-contracts-for-difference-auctions-from-next-year-onwards/