Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

silverwhistle

In theory intraday storage would seem like a no brainier.  However the recent fall in gas prices may have suddenly changed the economics again..

In the longer term I don't think fluctuating gas prices will impact intraday storage, but as you suggest the importance is having a mechanism that helps pay for the investment being made. The advantage of such schemes though is that they also provide grid services, frequency response and black start capabilities.

Coastalwatch

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

Thanks ET & Mart for posting. I share your frustrations on the topic for storage, as it is a vital requirement in the transition to a cleaner grid based upon renewable energy generation, if we are to achieve the carbon reduction necessary to avoid the worst effects of GW..

Having invested in the Red John Hydro scheme(450MW) via Abundance to assist in getting it through the planning stage, it would then be a travesty of justice if it couldn't progress further simply because of a lack of transparency of how the investment required to build it would be returned.

It also rather highlights the massive overbuild of renewable generation required in order to cover the increasing demand from heating and EV's not to mention the lulls in generation that storage will help mitigate.Presumably there would be quite some demand if charging Pumped Hydro Scheme's, together with the nations EV's, both commercial and private were to occur in the same "cheap" overnight slot.

We appear to be crawling at snails pace in our efforts at avoiding the worst effects of climate change when in reality we should be sprinting.

Not too disimilar to Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

 

In theory intraday storage would seem like a no brainier.  However the recent fall in gas prices may have suddenly changed the economics again which suggests that the govt would need to step in with a CfD type mechanism to make the finances add up, especially as by smoothing out day peaks and night troughs the system would 'eat its own lunch' by evening out the price differentials.

Longer term storage the jury is still out as basically it does many fewer cycles to spread the capital cost over.  I still think H2 for combustion in CCGTs may be the answer with such green H2 stations running for more of the time than we might expect (eg wind produces 150% of energy requirement but only 50% is used directly and the other 100% goes vis H2 at 50% efficiency) so green H2 thermal supplies 50% of our electricity altogether making it worthwhile to have a large enough fleet of CCGTs to supply 75% of our peak need without them being idle 95% of the time.

I'm afraid that gas in any form does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, so while gas prices maybe falling climate change does not recognise this and continues moving forward at pace. If we are to meet carbon reduction goals then vast amounts of storage appear to be required now.

With renewables generating an even greater proportion of energy as time progresses then it surely doesn't take much understanding to appreciate that greater amounts of storage will also be required. It makes little sense not to encourage it's take up.

Prior to renewables Hydro was a great asset and if it was needed to support nuclear generation half a century ago then surely there will be a greater need for it in the half century to follow. Other forms of storage come into the mix as well but presently they are mostly limited to shorter terms than Hydro can achieve.

I have to agree that longer term storage may present a larger problem in terms of capital return but it if too can contribute towards intraday needs then this may ameliorate the issue somewhat.

Speaking purely from a domestic view here I'd rather have too much storage capacity than not enough. It would be interesting to know whether National Grid might take a similar view.

Martyn1981

British universities to the rescue. 

Must be nice for students to have a way to actually improve their environmental future.

Universities Develop Ways For Wind Turbines To Generate More Energy

• Major collaboration between universities and industry has made vital improvements to offshore wind production

• Partnership between Universities of Sheffield, Durham, Hull and energy companies Siemens Gamesa and Ørsted has developed ways to make wind turbines more efficient, reliable, lighter and cheaper

• Collaboration is also helping energy companies better predict issues and faults

• Improvements mean wind turbines could run for longer and generate more renewable energy – reducing the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels

A major collaboration between universities and energy companies has made vital improvements to offshore wind turbines, which could help them generate more renewable energy and reduce the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels.

Martyn1981

I won't hold my breath, but at least tidal lagoons are still being considered/researched.

Wales launches tidal lagoon research scheme

Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford (pictured) has announced £750,000 for the Tidal Lagoon Challenge.

The money will be available for at least three research projects focusing on the deployment of tidal lagoon technology.

The research will help address the barriers that have prevented the development of the technology and give more insight into the benefits it could bring to Wales, he said. 

Coastalwatch

It would appear that it's not just EV roll out that is impressive in China, at least according to the figures published in the article linked here.

Rather makes a mockery of our attempts at the pace of change here in the UK.

China installed 20.37 GW of PV in January-February period

China's NEA said this week that the country's cumulative PV capacity hit 314 GW at the end of February.

The NEW said that new PV installations China deployed 20.37 GW in the first two months of this year, up 88% increase year on year. About 8 GW of this capacity came from large-scale installations, with distributed generation PV systems accounting for the remainder.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/03/23/china-installed-20-37-gw-of-pv-in-january-february-period/

ABrass

Apparently we've signed on to another bad nuclear power deal.

24 x 20MW SMRs at £100 million a time.

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/last-energy-claims-to-have-sold-24-nuclear-reactors-in-the-uk-for-24-billion/

Like Rolls-Royce, Last Energy also uses PWR technology, but with smaller 20MW reactors. The company will install a cube-shaped reactor vessel underground, and bolt together supporting equipment in shipping container-sized units above ground. The reactor is built from steel rather than concrete, by firms with a pedigree in oil infrastructure, and designed to be used for six years only, after which time the reactor core is stabilized and left in place.

Around half the price to build per MW as HPC but only running for 6 years before it's abandoned in place? That's insane, it must be wrong

Martyn1981

Sounds insane, but it's nuclear, and so very possible now.

Slight niggle, there are a few small (almost petty) issues in that article. Nothing too important, like saying HPC is 2.3GW, when its 3.2GW, and that SZC is due to open early 2030's, when it has been approved, but no contract agreed nor issued. That's similar to HPC getting approval in 2012 (and a CfD award), but not approved till 2015. I'd doubt SZC could be generating before 2035, even if agreed today.

I only mention these small points, as it could mean other parts of the article are slightly out too, but they could also be spot on.

I'd also point to the suggestion that the RR SMR's could be a quarter of the price of HPC. My understanding is that they would need subsidy support to sell the first few, as the price will be uneconomic, before they can get down to HPC costs. Only after that could they / might they get down to sub HPC generation costs as they predict. But the hoped for price, I think I recall £60/MWh, is already higher than wind and PV in the UK.

Nu-Scale is more advanced than RR, and expected to be cheaper, but they've had loads of problems, and rising costs. Interesting to see costs now estimated at $90/MWh, so ~3x more than some US PV and on-shore wind generation already (location dependant).

[Edit - Just a thought, but taking the old £60/MWh estimate figure for RR SMR's, applying index linking from 2012, and converting to dollars, gives me a figure of ~$90/MWh.]

Lastly, the recent budget announcement was good for nuclear, but as stated is 'upto' £20bn (that's just the subsidy support, not the cost), to provide upto 25% of future leccy demand. I suspect the real figures will be far, far lower.

25% of future leccy demand, could be around 25GW of nuclear - but 5yrs ago the Gov was advised by their advisers, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), to slow down their plans for 16GW of nuclear, and instead stop at HPC + 1 (most likely SZC), then review the situation, as they now (5yrs ago) suspected RE + storage would be cheaper.

For context, off-shore wind CfD's in 2017, the year before this advice, were issued at £74.75/MWh (2021/22 delivery) & £57.50/MWh (2022/232 delivery). In 2019 CfD's were issued at £39.65 & £41.61, then 2021 auction (2022 results) at £37.35. HPC contract was issued at £89.50. [All prices using 2012 baseline before index linking].


Tbf, whilst I think it's worth paying a small amount more for our leccy if it means avoiding the long term issues of nuclear, and now, in reality, it looks like avoiding nuclear is actually the cheaper option .... I'd still suggest that some subsidy funding of SMR's is worth it, just to make sure we aren't missing out on a viable source of generation. I don't think it is now viable (economically), but that's just my opinion, and I'd be a hyporcrite to support tidal lagoon research in Swansea*, which will be expensive, possibly nuclear level expensive, without at least considering some research into SMR's.

*Swansea will be expensive, because its small, but being small, it will be quicker and easier to test out the idea, before considering larger schemes, such as Cardiff, which would be 10x the size, and roughly half the cost per MWh.



Edit - Update, the article suggests a 6yr life for the reactors, but looking at the company's website, it states:

95% uptime, 72 month fuel cycle, < 3 month refueling period

So it looks like it runs for 6yrs, before refueling, giving it a cf of 95% (I make it 96%(?)), which only makes sense if it continues to operate. Another article suggests it operates for 20-24yrs.

shinytop

Martyn1981 said:

Sounds insane, but it's nuclear, and so very possible now.

Slight niggle, there are a few small (almost petty) issues in that article. Nothing too important, like saying HPC is 2.3GW, when its 3.2GW, and that SZC is due to open early 2030's, when it has been approved, but no contract agreed nor issued. That's similar to HPC getting approval in 2012 (and a CfD award), but not approved till 2015. I'd doubt SZC could be generating before 2035, even if agreed today.

I only mention these small points, as it could mean other parts of the article are slightly out too, but they could also be spot on.

I'd also point to the suggestion that the RR SMR's could be a quarter of the price of HPC. My understanding is that they would need subsidy support to sell the first few, as the price will be uneconomic, before they can get down to HPC costs. Only after that could they / might they get down to sub HPC generation costs as they predict. But the hoped for price, I think I recall £60/MWh, is already higher than wind and PV in the UK.

Nu-Scale is more advanced than RR, and expected to be cheaper, but they've had loads of problems, and rising costs. Interesting to see costs now estimated at $90/MWh, so ~3x more than some US PV and on-shore wind generation already (location dependant).

[Edit - Just a thought, but taking the old £60/MWh estimate figure for RR SMR's, applying index linking from 2012, and converting to dollars, gives me a figure of ~$90/MWh.]

Lastly, the recent budget announcement was good for nuclear, but as stated is 'upto' £20bn (that's just the subsidy support, not the cost), to provide upto 25% of future leccy demand. I suspect the real figures will be far, far lower.

25% of future leccy demand, could be around 25GW of nuclear - but 5yrs ago the Gov was advised by their advisers, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), to slow down their plans for 16GW of nuclear, and instead stop at HPC + 1 (most likely SZC), then review the situation, as they now (5yrs ago) suspected RE + storage would be cheaper.

For context, off-shore wind CfD's in 2017, the year before this advice, were issued at £74.75/MWh (2021/22 delivery) & £57.50/MWh (2022/232 delivery). In 2019 CfD's were issued at £39.65 & £41.61, then 2021 auction (2022 results) at £37.35. HPC contract was issued at £89.50. [All prices using 2012 baseline before index linking].


Tbf, whilst I think it's worth paying a small amount more for our leccy if it means avoiding the long term issues of nuclear, and now, in reality, it looks like avoiding nuclear is actually the cheaper option .... I'd still suggest that some subsidy funding of SMR's is worth it, just to make sure we aren't missing out on a viable source of generation. I don't think it is now viable (economically), but that's just my opinion, and I'd be a hyporcrite to support tidal lagoon research in Swansea*, which will be expensive, possibly nuclear level expensive, without at least considering some research into SMR's.

*Swansea will be expensive, because its small, but being small, it will be quicker and easier to test out the idea, before considering larger schemes, such as Cardiff, which would be 10x the size, and roughly half the cost per MWh.



Edit - Update, the article suggests a 6yr life for the reactors, but looking at the company's website, it states:

95% uptime, 72 month fuel cycle, < 3 month refueling period

So it looks like it runs for 6yrs, before refueling, giving it a cf of 95% (I make it 96%(?)), which only makes sense if it continues to operate. Another article suggests it operates for 20-24yrs.

This seems to come around every few months.  Everybody knows wind/solar are cheaper per kWh generated than nuclear. But is it fair to compare SMR/nuclear with wind/solar?  One is available 95% + of the time, the other.....isn't.  A comparison with tidal or with a package that can deliver 95% of the time (wind/solar plus storage) would perhaps be more meaningful. 

I don't recall seeing any serious, viable scale-able plans or designs for such a package that would work in the UK, let alone costed ones.  

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

Sounds insane, but it's nuclear, and so very possible now.

Slight niggle, there are a few small (almost petty) issues in that article. Nothing too important, like saying HPC is 2.3GW, when its 3.2GW, and that SZC is due to open early 2030's, when it has been approved, but no contract agreed nor issued. That's similar to HPC getting approval in 2012 (and a CfD award), but not approved till 2015. I'd doubt SZC could be generating before 2035, even if agreed today.

I only mention these small points, as it could mean other parts of the article are slightly out too, but they could also be spot on.

I'd also point to the suggestion that the RR SMR's could be a quarter of the price of HPC. My understanding is that they would need subsidy support to sell the first few, as the price will be uneconomic, before they can get down to HPC costs. Only after that could they / might they get down to sub HPC generation costs as they predict. But the hoped for price, I think I recall £60/MWh, is already higher than wind and PV in the UK.

Nu-Scale is more advanced than RR, and expected to be cheaper, but they've had loads of problems, and rising costs. Interesting to see costs now estimated at $90/MWh, so ~3x more than some US PV and on-shore wind generation already (location dependant).

[Edit - Just a thought, but taking the old £60/MWh estimate figure for RR SMR's, applying index linking from 2012, and converting to dollars, gives me a figure of ~$90/MWh.]

Lastly, the recent budget announcement was good for nuclear, but as stated is 'upto' £20bn (that's just the subsidy support, not the cost), to provide upto 25% of future leccy demand. I suspect the real figures will be far, far lower.

25% of future leccy demand, could be around 25GW of nuclear - but 5yrs ago the Gov was advised by their advisers, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), to slow down their plans for 16GW of nuclear, and instead stop at HPC + 1 (most likely SZC), then review the situation, as they now (5yrs ago) suspected RE + storage would be cheaper.

For context, off-shore wind CfD's in 2017, the year before this advice, were issued at £74.75/MWh (2021/22 delivery) & £57.50/MWh (2022/232 delivery). In 2019 CfD's were issued at £39.65 & £41.61, then 2021 auction (2022 results) at £37.35. HPC contract was issued at £89.50. [All prices using 2012 baseline before index linking].


Tbf, whilst I think it's worth paying a small amount more for our leccy if it means avoiding the long term issues of nuclear, and now, in reality, it looks like avoiding nuclear is actually the cheaper option .... I'd still suggest that some subsidy funding of SMR's is worth it, just to make sure we aren't missing out on a viable source of generation. I don't think it is now viable (economically), but that's just my opinion, and I'd be a hyporcrite to support tidal lagoon research in Swansea*, which will be expensive, possibly nuclear level expensive, without at least considering some research into SMR's.

*Swansea will be expensive, because its small, but being small, it will be quicker and easier to test out the idea, before considering larger schemes, such as Cardiff, which would be 10x the size, and roughly half the cost per MWh.



Edit - Update, the article suggests a 6yr life for the reactors, but looking at the company's website, it states:

95% uptime, 72 month fuel cycle, < 3 month refueling period

So it looks like it runs for 6yrs, before refueling, giving it a cf of 95% (I make it 96%(?)), which only makes sense if it continues to operate. Another article suggests it operates for 20-24yrs.

This seems to come around every few months.  Everybody knows wind/solar are cheaper per kWh generated than nuclear. But is it fair to compare SMR/nuclear with wind/solar?  One is available 95% + of the time, the other.....isn't.  A comparison with tidal or with a package that can deliver 95% of the time (wind/solar plus storage) would perhaps be more meaningful. 

I don't recall seeing any serious, viable scale-able plans or designs for such a package that would work in the UK, let alone costed ones.  

Yep, it keeps coming round. The NIC were comparing like for like, by including storage costs, hence its relevance, and that was 5yrs ago when RE and storage cost more, but it'll come around again soon. And that's before considering that nuclear also needs storage, unless it's 'hidden' as baseload, and any excess at any point of time is 'blamed' on the RE contribution only.

The work and research from Mark Jacobson and Stanford University may be of interest to you as this is regularly updated, and makes the news. They've also produced breakdowns of the necessary technologies needed for each country, to reach 100% RE leccy. The earlier breakdowns go back to 2017 and 202 pages, gulp.

Article this year:

No miracles needed’: Prof Mark Jacobson on how wind, sun and water can power the world

The Stanford University academic has a compelling pitch: the world can rapidly get 100% of its energy from renewable sources with, as the title of his new book says, “no miracles needed”.

Wind, water and solar can provide plentiful and cheap power, he argues, ending the carbon emissions driving the climate crisis, slashing deadly air pollution and ensuring energy security. Carbon capture and storage, biofuels, new nuclear and other technologies are expensive wastes of time, he argues.

“Bill Gates said we have to put a lot of money into miracle technologies,” Jacobson says. “But we don’t – we have the technologies that we need. We have wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, electric cars. We have batteries, heat pumps, energy efficiency. We have 95% of the technologies right now that we need to solve the problem.” The missing 5% is for long-distance aircraft and ships, he says, for which hydrogen-powered fuel cells can be developed.

Storage of many types, scales and lengths are discussed all the time on here. Including ones like H2 or CAES with potentials of days or weeks. Actually, many such articles have been posted before and between your regular claims that none have. In the case of CAES, some trials (not in the UK) have started in the last year or so.

Edit - Also important to mention RE overcapacity (economical), combined with the massive expansion of interconnectors, from 4GW to 5GW last decade to about 10GW now, and 16GW by 2026. This allows for greater export of excess (allowing for more overcapacity), and the import of shortfalls, including leaning on storage in other European countries.

Exiled_Tyke

This reminded of something I read and when I found it. Hey Presto it's the same Prof!   Although it's essentially the same points the compelling argument is worth a thorough read so I thought I'd provide a link.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/07/climate-crisis-miracle-technology-wind-water-solar