First blackout of the wind power heavy system

GreatApe

There might be a large fairly easy way to do frequency control

Regulate for immersion heaters to have frequency response
If the frequency falls below a certain level the immersion heaters turn off

There might be as much as 1GW load shedding available from this alone
Likewise you could do the same with fridges and freezers

The question would be how much additional cost will this add is it better to build some large batteries into the system instead

coffeehound

GreatApe wrote: »

As you go higher and higher intermittent supply you have to start installing significant batteries not for storage but for stability. This is one of the many hidden costs of intermittent supply.

A facility where I once worked used huge contrete flywheels in the ground to act as electricity supply stabilisation. Wonder whether something like that might offer advantages over batteries.

GreatApe wrote: »

Another is you need significant transmission upgrades to bring this low density far away source of power to where it is needed. Like the two huge HVDC lines from Scotland to England/Wales recnelty

Can I ask: why DC? Does that give more efficient transmission than AC?

michaels

mmmmikey wrote: »

A confident statement, but as they say on Wikipedia, needs citation!

On the news last night they pointed out that we had a similar blackout round about 2009 (I can't remember the exact year), at which time wind couldn't have been to blame.

I think you have fallen into the trap of confusing the variable nature of wind energy (which weather forecasting has made predictable a few days in advance) with the sudden, catastrophic failure of some piece of equipment (which could happen to any power station - such as the gas power station that triggered the problem).

I don't think the op is saying anything about the variability of wind generation. I thought the point was a large heavy gas turbine could be harnessed immediately to supply more juice when there is a sudden supply failure whereas wind turbines and pv do not support this instant ramping up thus if not much instant response capacity is in the system then there is less scope to handle unexpected outages.

Martyn1981

coffeehound wrote: »

A facility where I once worked used huge contrete flywheels in the ground to act as electricity supply stabilisation. Wonder whether something like that might offer advantages over batteries.

Can I ask: why DC? Does that give more efficient transmission than AC?

Europe’s largest hybrid flywheel battery project to help grid respond to energy demand


Regarding DC, I believe it 'suffers' lower losses. Hopefully someone can confirm.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I don't think the op is saying anything about the variability of wind generation. I thought the point was a large heavy gas turbine could be harnessed immediately to supply more juice when there is a sudden supply failure whereas wind turbines and pv do not support this instant ramping up thus if not much instant response capacity is in the system then there is less scope to handle unexpected outages.

I think your confusing frequency response, fast response gas generators (like a jet engine), or diesel farms, with a large gas plant, which are used for demand following but not rapid response.

In fact, wind is used a lot for demand following, as it can be dialed down quite easily and quickly, and hence why it gets 'curtailment payments' for doing so.

For large centralised generation, particularly nuclear, where each reactor has enormous capacity, these developments need particular care and back up expenditure, since the loss of a single reactor, could mean the instant loss of 1.6GW, and place enormous strain on the grid, whereas the loss of one PV panel, one wind turbine, or even a whole wind/PV farm, will have far less instantaneous impact.

I doubt I'll find it again but there was some article/study estimating the lifetime back up costs for Hinkley Point C at ~$12bn, given the impact of 1.6-3.2GW of instantaneous loss. But I've no idea why it was in dollars.

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

lack of investment into teeth and leprechaun caves!!!

Is this related to the "bear AI" that you mentioned a week or so ago? I can understand the enthusiasm for solutions from the natural world, but perhaps it's going a bit too far...

GreatApe

coffeehound wrote: »

Can I ask: why DC? Does that give more efficient transmission than AC?

AC losses are far higher if you bury the lines and these were built in the sea bed iirc

Perhaps building overheat AC lines would have been cheaper and more efficient but then NIMBY

The real question for me though is would these very same HVDC lines and converter stations on either side have been better used as interconntors with France & Norway rather than Scotland to England? I think the answer to this is yes if they were built to Norway they would probably have a net 80% inflow and if built to France a net 70% inflow of hydropower and nuclear respectively. More than the 30-40% of onshore/offshore Scottish wind

mmmmikey

GreatApe wrote: »

Friday was a high wind low CCGT day
Thursday was a low wind higher CCGT day
Which day was the power cut?

The power cut was on the day the CCGT failed.

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

Regulate for immersion heaters to have frequency response. If the frequency falls below a certain level the immersion heaters turn off

There might be as much as 1GW load shedding available from this alone. Likewise you could do the same with fridges and freezers

The question would be how much additional cost will this add is it better to build some large batteries into the system instead

Cost for this could be quite low, for example the hardware and software for this is already installed in my home (see signature)

GreatApe

Hexane wrote: »

Is this related to the "bear AI" that you mentioned a week or so ago? I can understand the enthusiasm for solutions from the natural world, but perhaps it's going a bit too far...

I remember your post questioning this before

Near AI, not bear AI

Would have been obvious to most