Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

While the cynical amongst us may view it as a means of turning a liability or spent asset into a means of generating income for a further fifty years or so few of us would doubt it's benefits should it get the go ahead.

Plan to turn spent gold mine into pumped hydro facility fast tracked by Queensland government

A plan to build a 2 GW / 20 GWh pumped hydro project in the pit of an old gold mine in southeast Queensland has been declared a ‘Coordinated Project’ by the state’s Coordinator-General, a mechanism intended to fast track the plan.

As part of Queensland’s new energy plan, the state is now aiming for 70% of the state’s energy supply to come from renewables by 2032, and 80% by 2035. While these targets are hardly Australia’s most ambitious from a state government, the vision is pretty significant in that it represents a major U-turn from one of the country’s more conservative, coal holdouts.

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/10/14/plan-to-turn-spent-gold-mine-into-pumped-hydro-facility-fast-tracked-by-queensland-government/

70sbudgie

This is what concerns me most about the discussion around generation / storage.

Less the comparison with 1990 than that only 11% of energy was electricity. If we are going to decarbonise transport (oil?) and heating (gas?) we are going to need considerably more electricity than we currently have. Even when we take into account increased efficiencies of electrical appliances. 

And we haven't done much about increasing the number / size of cables since the 1990s (perhaps even as far back as the late 1960s!). I remember reading an article (possibly as long ago as 2010) that said UK electricity demand at the time, was the same as in 1985 (ish), because of the increased efficiencies of appliances, light bulbs etc.

The cables etc have to be sized to accommodate the peaks. It isn't quite as simple as adding a battery to give more kWhrs away from the peak - there need to be control systems to make sure the batteries aren't adding to the peaks, because there are significant safety issues if they do and cause the equipment to exceed its ratings. 

The pie charts are from the Energy in Brief 2022.

Martyn1981

@70'sbudgie, I love this stuff. I think the estimates for leccy generation are an increase of about 2.5x by 2050. Transport isn't too bad, perhaps +25%(net), but space heating, with heatpumps will be a big increase, and have a seasonal weighting/impact. I suppose some small gains will be made where heatpumps replace resistive leccy heating, but not sure how significant that will be.

Generation is fine, if people want to buy it, someone will produce it, and RE doesn't need that much space. Off-shore wind has the theoretical scale to supply 10 to 100 times our future needs, on its own. But as you say, transmission needs a big upgrade, but tbf, it's over a long time, and not gathering serious 'steam' till the end of this decade. I hope generation will be spread around well, and more inclusive as Z is so passionate about - and tbc, so am I in hoping for example, that the tidal lagoon schemes near me get approval.

I wonder how the massive increase in interconnectors, up to 7GW+ already, from 4GW- just a few years ago, and 15GW this decade, will impact UK distribution? Will we be selling leccy to mainland Europe in the North, and buying some in, in the south, as Europe gets ever better interconnected?

I'm being a bit slow and stupid today, but I can't think of a way that batteries make the peak worse? I'm pondering that supply side batts simply won't be able to discharge if the grid is at max (locally), and demand side/DNO batts would be discharging locally to reduce demand on the transmission network (and the distribution network if located at the demand end). Presumably, no batts on the demand side/DNO would be charging during peak demand periods, but I may be missing a scenario? Whereas supply side batts located with RE, may be charging from excess gen, if the grids transmission network is at capacity, and can't handle more.

You're right about total demand, it's been falling for the last decade too, thanks to the massive reductions from low energy lighting, and sizeable savings from TV's and cooling compressors getting more efficient. I think NG ESO suggested that the impact from BEV charging on the grid at peak times would be similar too, or less than the demand reduction over the last decade.

Ironically, the distribution of H2 for space heating and transport was seen as a way of reducing demand on the grid, but I'm watching the Fully Charged interview (1hr long) on H2, and whilst it has many potential uses, yet again we're told that it's simply not valid at all, for road transport and space heating. Oh well.

zeupater

70sbudgie said:

This is what concerns me most about the discussion around generation / storage.

Less the comparison with 1990 than that only 11% of energy was electricity. If we are going to decarbonise transport (oil?) and heating (gas?) we are going to need considerably more electricity than we currently have. Even when we take into account increased efficiencies of electrical appliances. 

And we haven't done much about increasing the number / size of cables since the 1990s (perhaps even as far back as the late 1960s!). I remember reading an article (possibly as long ago as 2010) that said UK electricity demand at the time, was the same as in 1985 (ish), because of the increased efficiencies of appliances, light bulbs etc.

The cables etc have to be sized to accommodate the peaks. It isn't quite as simple as adding a battery to give more kWhrs away from the peak - there need to be control systems to make sure the batteries aren't adding to the peaks, because there are significant safety issues if they do and cause the equipment to exceed its ratings. 

The pie charts are from the Energy in Brief 2022.

Hi

looking at the report it's likely that there may be a little misunderstanding of what the chart actually conveys ...(Report Link - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094025/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2022.pdf )

Firstly, there's the issue of 'Primary Electricity' ... the chart doesn't say that '11% of energy was electricity' it says that 11% was 'Primary Electricity', the definition of which includes nuclear, hydro, wind, solar thermal, PV & geothermal, therefore energy that isn't directly derived from conversion of energy stored in a source fuel.

What the chart does show is the change of source energy for electricity generation within the overall consumption ... ie the move from coal to gas & biomass & the reduction of oil consumption as a proportion of the entire energy budget, much of which will be related to transport efficiency improvements (mpg) over the period in question ... however, the chart in itself is a little misleading without referencing the accompanying table and annotations (page 9), which could have been easily addressed by scaling the pie chart area to represent the total energy budget on a temperature corrected basis, in which case the 2021 pie should reflect a 23% (170.7/221.6) overall reduction in energy since 1990 by having a 23% reduction in it's area.

Taking this a step further, if the chart reflected changes in population there'd be a further energy/head reduction to reflect an increase from 57.2million in 1990 to 67.3million in 2021 (17.7%), so we're really looking at a 23% reduction despite a 17.7% increase in population ... that's ~35% less energy used per head of UK population between 1990 & 2021 at the same time that the change in fuel source mix conveyed in the chart has reduced overall emissions per unit of energy requirements.

In conclusion, the chart cannot be read without the context provided in the report & taking this further, even the context provided within the report can be considered misleading without in some way referencing changes in population, a word that doesn't even appear once in a 52 page report.

HTH - Z

zeupater

Martyn1981 said:

[ ... ]
I'm being a bit slow and stupid today, but I can't think of a way that batteries make the peak worse? I'm pondering that supply side batts simply won't be able to discharge if the grid is at max (locally), and demand side/DNO batts would be discharging locally to reduce demand on the transmission network (and the distribution network if located at the demand end). Presumably, no batts on the demand side/DNO would be charging during peak demand periods, but I may be missing a scenario? Whereas supply side batts located with RE, may be charging from excess gen, if the grids transmission network is at capacity, and can't handle more.
[ ... ]

Hi

The issue is that storage wouldn't necessarily be close to generation, with renewables in particular it's more likely that even a strategic storage solution would be closer to population centres than otherwise would be the case with centralised generation sources such as nuclear and biomass .... there's no reason why MWh scale battery packs couldn't be located close to or within existing DNO substations which would totally negate the argument regarding distribution .... then again, there's both demand side generation & storage, not only microgeneration either as some large facilities have invested in & installed their own on site renewables generating facilities in order to reduce costs, for example, Nissan's on site energy must have a huge overall impact on grid demand in the Sunderland area ...(Ref - from 2021 : https://uk.nissannews.com/en-GB/releases/release-abe1d9572c0dbf098bf54c66e924a963-nissan-announces-plans-for-major-expansion-of-renewable-energy-at-sunderland-plant ) 

HTH - Z

Martyn1981

zeupater said:

Martyn1981 said:

[ ... ]
I'm being a bit slow and stupid today, but I can't think of a way that batteries make the peak worse? I'm pondering that supply side batts simply won't be able to discharge if the grid is at max (locally), and demand side/DNO batts would be discharging locally to reduce demand on the transmission network (and the distribution network if located at the demand end). Presumably, no batts on the demand side/DNO would be charging during peak demand periods, but I may be missing a scenario? Whereas supply side batts located with RE, may be charging from excess gen, if the grids transmission network is at capacity, and can't handle more.
[ ... ]

Hi

The issue is that storage wouldn't necessarily be close to generation, with renewables in particular it's more likely that even a strategic storage solution would be closer to population centres than otherwise would be the case with centralised generation sources such as nuclear and biomass .... there's no reason why MWh scale battery packs couldn't be located close to or within existing DNO substations which would totally negate the argument regarding distribution .... then again, there's both demand side generation & storage, not only microgeneration either as some large facilities have invested in & installed their own on site renewables generating facilities in order to reduce costs, for example, Nissan's on site energy must have a huge overall impact on grid demand in the Sunderland area ...(Ref - from 2021 : https://uk.nissannews.com/en-GB/releases/release-abe1d9572c0dbf098bf54c66e924a963-nissan-announces-plans-for-major-expansion-of-renewable-energy-at-sunderland-plant ) 

HTH - Z

Thanks, and that's just reminded me that some large leccy consumers are installing storage not because, or just because of varying energy prices, but also because they get charged higher prices (at times) depending on their power draw, since this impacts the Grid as a whole. So if they need more power, but want to avoid hitting a higher tariff, they can draw some from the storage.

I seem to recall some sort of power pricing in France for domestic households, and possibly Silverwhistle(?) mentioned something similar in Italy, where you pay a higher standing charge (equivalent) to have higher power levels ...... sounds like some bad Marvel character - "I have reached higher power levels!"

Edit - and another memory jog, I recall watching a mini-documentary about the Scottish Isle of Eigg and all the RE they were rolling out (early) back around 2010(ish). The households had a power level set at 5kW, so the property would trip out if they loaded too many things on at once. This helped to spread the load on the community RE / storage. Cool stuff, and meant everyone understood the ratings of their electrical goods, and the difference between power (kW) and energy (kWh).

70sbudgie

zeupater said:

70sbudgie said:

This is what concerns me most about the discussion around generation / storage.

Less the comparison with 1990 than that only 11% of energy was electricity. If we are going to decarbonise transport (oil?) and heating (gas?) we are going to need considerably more electricity than we currently have. Even when we take into account increased efficiencies of electrical appliances. 

And we haven't done much about increasing the number / size of cables since the 1990s (perhaps even as far back as the late 1960s!). I remember reading an article (possibly as long ago as 2010) that said UK electricity demand at the time, was the same as in 1985 (ish), because of the increased efficiencies of appliances, light bulbs etc.

The cables etc have to be sized to accommodate the peaks. It isn't quite as simple as adding a battery to give more kWhrs away from the peak - there need to be control systems to make sure the batteries aren't adding to the peaks, because there are significant safety issues if they do and cause the equipment to exceed its ratings. 

The pie charts are from the Energy in Brief 2022.

Hi

looking at the report it's likely that there may be a little misunderstanding of what the chart actually conveys ...(Report Link - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094025/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2022.pdf )

Firstly, there's the issue of 'Primary Electricity' ... the chart doesn't say that '11% of energy was electricity' it says that 11% was 'Primary Electricity', the definition of which includes nuclear, hydro, wind, solar thermal, PV & geothermal, therefore energy that isn't directly derived from conversion of energy stored in a source fuel.

What the chart does show is the change of source energy for electricity generation within the overall consumption ... ie the move from coal to gas & biomass & the reduction of oil consumption as a proportion of the entire energy budget, much of which will be related to transport efficiency improvements (mpg) over the period in question ... however, the chart in itself is a little misleading without referencing the accompanying table and annotations (page 9), which could have been easily addressed by scaling the pie chart area to represent the total energy budget on a temperature corrected basis, in which case the 2021 pie should reflect a 23% (170.7/221.6) overall reduction in energy since 1990 by having a 23% reduction in it's area.

Taking this a step further, if the chart reflected changes in population there'd be a further energy/head reduction to reflect an increase from 57.2million in 1990 to 67.3million in 2021 (17.7%), so we're really looking at a 23% reduction despite a 17.7% increase in population ... that's ~35% less energy used per head of UK population between 1990 & 2021 at the same time that the change in fuel source mix conveyed in the chart has reduced overall emissions per unit of energy requirements.

In conclusion, the chart cannot be read without the context provided in the report & taking this further, even the context provided within the report can be considered misleading without in some way referencing changes in population, a word that doesn't even appear once in a 52 page report.

HTH - Z

Apologies, I didn't crop with the intention of deliberately misleading. I was trying to use the graph to show how much the transmission and distributions network will have to grow if we are going to electrify other energy uses (transport and heating).

And if the total electricity demand hasn't grown since the 1990s, the distribution and transmission networks wouldn't have grown. Increases in capacity are only paid for when they are needed. I think we need a change in mindset to try to anticipate how much they will need to grow and start that process of expansion in advance of immediate need.

I had missed the idea that electricity can be generated from the other fuel sources, so it isn't an accurate illustration.

The graph shows a lot of data and I agree @zeupater that the wider comments and context are needed to get at all that.

In terms of batteries, there is no such thing as "supply side" or "demand side" batteries, supply batteries need to charge at some point and when they do, they are adding to the demand. So each battery installation can import and export; when they do is based on their operation. So batteries can import at any time. Then, how do you automate preventing them from exporting at the wrong time?

And what is the "wrong time?". The right time for the grid in total, could be the wrong time for the local network where the battery is connected. The right time for Carlisle could be the wrong time for Cardiff.

So balancing services need to be able to balance load and generation geographically as well as chronologically and I think that might be the bigger challenge.

michaels

I wonder if this might work or is just hype?
Could rooftop wind give rooftop solar a run for its money? (electrek.co)

Realistically priced wind power in countries like the UK might make it even easier for many households to move completely off grid, especially if it was quiet/no blades

paul991

I think the govt has made it clear they don't want too many renewables as its easier to tax gas  and petrol  

Coastalwatch

 In view of recent opinions announced publicly by certain politicians this article caught my eye. It has quite a complex background involving differing government departments and is well worth reading. I include but a small section below as a taster.

UK Government’s new Crossens solar farm reveals challenges to Best & Most Versatile land issue

However, in the current climate of land grade and usage, the Crossens solar farm is a project that may not have happened if increased focus had been placed on historic land grade assignation.

First, the solar farm is on Green Belt land; but more crucially, it is on land classified as Grade 1 (the highest quality grade for agricultural land). This is actually somewhat unusual for any solar farm in the UK. In fact, I can’t recall a proposed – or built – solar farm in the UK that was exclusively on Grade 1 land, having analysed every solar farm site in the UK during the past 12 years.

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/blogs/uk_governments_new_crossens_solar_farm_reveals_challenges_to_best_most_vers