Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

Exiled_Tyke said:

This does make my blood boil. Arguments against the scheme are quoted in the article as 'we love the peace and quiet round here',  Solar panels don't work at night etc....  

OK it's on an industrial scale, but that's what we need to save the planet and there can be (as Martyn has uncovered on a number of occasions) great direct wildlife benefits from solar farms.   I conclude - Nimbyism at its worst.  

Yes, isn't it strange but in relation to noise I believe Solar panels are inherently silent so one can clearly hear the many calls of nature quite readily amongst them. Also I'm not entirely sure that plants or crops grow very well in the dark or during winter either. 

As has been pointed out many times PV and biodiversity go extremely well together and far better than intensely cropped agriculture where insect and bird specie numbers have been falling off a cliff in recent years.

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Where does the 500GwH come from?  Sounds much too high for me for balancing within the day.

Do we know the economics of battery storage?  Presumably the 'first few' GWh can be extremely profitable in meeting unmet peak demand but as more and more gets rolled out the profitability for all diminishes?

You will have to think back about a decade to the many discussions on MSE, particularly regarding the need for nuclear power instead of high RE deployment.

I too think 500GWh sounds a bit too high, but it's a good test, since it was used almost as a way to 'prove' that nuclear was needed. You may recall that nuclear advocates on here (and other forums) often referred to Euan Mearns of Energy Matters. His papers suggested, that without nuclear, on extremely cold days when leccy demand may exceed 120GW, then ~500GWh of intraday storage would be needed, v's only 10's of GWh's for nuclear.

UK Electricity 2050 Part 4: Nuclear and renewables cost comparisons

Unfortunately for Mr Mearns, his 500GWh figure which IMO was mainly used by nuclear advocates to show that very large nuclear capacity was unavoidable, was unluckily timed to coincide with the massive growth in BEV's.

This had two unfortunate side effects for the 'nuclear is essential' argument, as it led to a rapidly falling cost of battery storage, thanks to the very high learning curve for storage (Wright's Law), and opened the door to the possibility of V2G. So that extreme 500GWh of intraday storage figure suddenly became entirely possible.

I also suspect that the large growth in interconnectors to the European mainland, will help significantly with intraday balancing, as well as balancing over days to a week or two, when considering maximum figures for storage at all levels.


Don't take this too seriously, I'm only pondering out loud, but I can now see a future scenario where even domestic demand level storage reaches 100GWh. Especially if we include potential DNO storage deployments at small local sub stations, or distributed through households. 10m homes with 10kWh of storage each (on average) would be 100GWh.

It adds up fast.

Thank you. Key bit was the 120gw number in your explanation. IE it is not the number needed with current level of demand/supply but related to a post fossil fuel future.

Yes, and to be blunt, I don't think producing clean leccy to displace our current leccy needs is a problem. Even BEV's aren't too much of an issue ..... but domestic space heating is where things get serious.

Currently, household estimates for energy are about 2,700kWh leccy and 11,500kWh gas. Even with a 3:1 COP for heatpumps that's an additional 3,800kWh, or about 1.4x more again. And of course, that heating demand is not spread evenly. It has a very high weighting towards the colder 6 months of the year, and a further high weighting to the coldest 3 months (Dec to Feb).

So the domestic demand side for leccy will be much higher, especially in the winter. Good news is that we have lots of wind potential in the UK, and wind has a high weighting towards those months too. But more RE generation, and more leccy demand, will mean more balancing needed from intraday storage.

No idea how the maths works, but I assume intraday storage will also be able to lean on medium and long duration storage too, but the economics and round trip efficiencies, have way too many moving parts for me to comprehend, or even dare a guess at.

Exiled_Tyke

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Where does the 500GwH come from?  Sounds much too high for me for balancing within the day.

Do we know the economics of battery storage?  Presumably the 'first few' GWh can be extremely profitable in meeting unmet peak demand but as more and more gets rolled out the profitability for all diminishes?

You will have to think back about a decade to the many discussions on MSE, particularly regarding the need for nuclear power instead of high RE deployment.

I too think 500GWh sounds a bit too high, but it's a good test, since it was used almost as a way to 'prove' that nuclear was needed. You may recall that nuclear advocates on here (and other forums) often referred to Euan Mearns of Energy Matters. His papers suggested, that without nuclear, on extremely cold days when leccy demand may exceed 120GW, then ~500GWh of intraday storage would be needed, v's only 10's of GWh's for nuclear.

UK Electricity 2050 Part 4: Nuclear and renewables cost comparisons

Unfortunately for Mr Mearns, his 500GWh figure which IMO was mainly used by nuclear advocates to show that very large nuclear capacity was unavoidable, was unluckily timed to coincide with the massive growth in BEV's.

This had two unfortunate side effects for the 'nuclear is essential' argument, as it led to a rapidly falling cost of battery storage, thanks to the very high learning curve for storage (Wright's Law), and opened the door to the possibility of V2G. So that extreme 500GWh of intraday storage figure suddenly became entirely possible.

I also suspect that the large growth in interconnectors to the European mainland, will help significantly with intraday balancing, as well as balancing over days to a week or two, when considering maximum figures for storage at all levels.


Don't take this too seriously, I'm only pondering out loud, but I can now see a future scenario where even domestic demand level storage reaches 100GWh. Especially if we include potential DNO storage deployments at small local sub stations, or distributed through households. 10m homes with 10kWh of storage each (on average) would be 100GWh.

It adds up fast.

Thank you. Key bit was the 120gw number in your explanation. IE it is not the number needed with current level of demand/supply but related to a post fossil fuel future.

Yes, and to be blunt, I don't think producing clean leccy to displace our current leccy needs is a problem. Even BEV's aren't too much of an issue ..... but domestic space heating is where things get serious.

Currently, household estimates for energy are about 2,700kWh leccy and 11,500kWh gas. Even with a 3:1 COP for heatpumps that's an additional 3,800kWh, or about 1.4x more again. And of course, that heating demand is not spread evenly. It has a very high weighting towards the colder 6 months of the year, and a further high weighting to the coldest 3 months (Dec to Feb).

So the domestic demand side for leccy will be much higher, especially in the winter. Good news is that we have lots of wind potential in the UK, and wind has a high weighting towards those months too. But more RE generation, and more leccy demand, will mean more balancing needed from intraday storage.

No idea how the maths works, but I assume intraday storage will also be able to lean on medium and long duration storage too, but the economics and round trip efficiencies, have way too many moving parts for me to comprehend, or even dare a guess at.

Well as climate change takes hold and we all need A/C I'm sure the PV farms' excess energy can be mopped up by them.  

I wonder whether EV drivers make more and longer journeys in the summer months?????

NedS

For anyone with an hour to spare, I recommend a listen of the latest Cleaning Up podcast who interview John Pettigrew, the CEO of National Grid:

https://www.cleaningup.live/the-ps60-billion-plan-to-rewire-britain-ep227-john-pettigrew/

Covers topics such as the recent Iberian and Heathrow blackouts, increase in demand from EVs and AI data centres, and what National Grid are doing over the next few years to help improve the transmission network.

QrizB

Martyn1981 said:

10m homes with 10kWh of storage each (on average) would be 100GWh.

And 10m driveways each with a 50kWh BEV plugged in for V2G would be ...

Anyone? Anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCFdWeQfA

(That's quite a timely economics lesson, as well.)

Magnitio

Coastalwatch said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

This does make my blood boil. Arguments against the scheme are quoted in the article as 'we love the peace and quiet round here',  Solar panels don't work at night etc....  

OK it's on an industrial scale, but that's what we need to save the planet and there can be (as Martyn has uncovered on a number of occasions) great direct wildlife benefits from solar farms.   I conclude - Nimbyism at its worst.  

Yes, isn't it strange but in relation to noise I believe Solar panels are inherently silent so one can clearly hear the many calls of nature quite readily amongst them. Also I'm not entirely sure that plants or crops grow very well in the dark or during winter either. 

As has been pointed out many times PV and biodiversity go extremely well together and far better than intensely cropped agriculture where insect and bird specie numbers have been falling off a cliff in recent years.

I live near a number of solar farms and have no issue with them. They don't spoil the countryside and sheep still graze in the same fields, but have some shade when they want it. They are trivial compared with the horrendous mess made by HS2 and some new housing developments. 

The biggest issue caused by solar farms is the disruption during installation. This can create a lot of noise and additional traffic for those living nearby and, on a very large development, may go on for some considerable time.

My proposal would be to cancel HS2 and turn it into one long solar farm.

debitcardmayhem

Magnitio said:

Coastalwatch said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

This does make my blood boil. Arguments against the scheme are quoted in the article as 'we love the peace and quiet round here',  Solar panels don't work at night etc....  

OK it's on an industrial scale, but that's what we need to save the planet and there can be (as Martyn has uncovered on a number of occasions) great direct wildlife benefits from solar farms.   I conclude - Nimbyism at its worst.  

Yes, isn't it strange but in relation to noise I believe Solar panels are inherently silent so one can clearly hear the many calls of nature quite readily amongst them. Also I'm not entirely sure that plants or crops grow very well in the dark or during winter either. 

As has been pointed out many times PV and biodiversity go extremely well together and far better than intensely cropped agriculture where insect and bird specie numbers have been falling off a cliff in recent years.

I live near a number of solar farms and have no issue with them. They don't spoil the countryside and sheep still graze in the same fields, but have some shade when they want it. They are trivial compared with the horrendous mess made by HS2 and some new housing developments. 

The biggest issue caused by solar farms is the disruption during installation. This can create a lot of noise and additional traffic for those living nearby and, on a very large development, may go on for some considerable time.

My proposal would be to cancel HS2 and turn it into one long solar farm.

Better still a HVDC run and requisite sub stations and BEV charging points and BESS too.