When will fossil fuel useage peak a general discussion

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Producing biogas using energy that would have otherwise been curtailed makes a lot of sense as long as storage isn't prohibitively expensive?? It could also be the answer to the frequency problem that we've just experienced.

The cost is the issue, but even that gets more complex**.

First off let's separate this from intra-day storage, estimated to be around 500GWh for the UK in a high leccy future. That's almost certainly going to come mostly from batteries. That should be enough to balance out daily variations.

But, obviously with PV having a summer preference and, how shall we put it, less than ideal generation at night, it will over and under produce at times. And wind, whilst limitless for the UK (for what we'll ever need) also has high variability.

At that point we need larger and longer scale storage. We could use batts, but they are expensive and the less you cycle them, the longer it takes to get your money back.

That's when gas (and others*) work well, as the storage part is pretty cheap, so you don't have to duplicate the production part to make the 'gas battery' bigger, just add some more cheap tanks.

So hydrogen (H2) is the obvious choice, and can burnt by thermal gas plants, or run through fuel cells for leccy. It can also be used as the basis for bio-methane (actually I suppose all methane is bio-methane, but we need to differentiate from FF gas) then again burnt for generation, or for space heating.

*Others is a long list, but the main ones would be CAES and LAES compressed air energy storage, liquid air energy storage. In short use energy to squash air, then get the energy back when it expands. Another idea is Ecotricity's green gas mills, which suggest using grass and through anerobic digestion take, and store the methane. They believe that the UK could support enough gas mills (upwards of 5,000) to produce 90%+ of future domestic gas demand.


**So, to cost, the good news here is that development is happening all over the world. In the UK Highview Power has already built smaller test plants for LAES, and say they can build 200MW/1,200MWh facilities. Australia and Japan are developing technologies, transport and legislation for the shipment of H2 from Aus to Japan, effectively transporting stored sunlight.

But also good news is that storage such as this would step in when nobody else want's the leccy. Not enough demand, batts are full etc, so the price will be as low as it goes, let's say £10 or £20/MWh, but they'd be selling back when demand is high and supply is low, so prices will high, let's say £100+. That'll help to balance out the cost and efficiency side of things.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The cost is the issue, but even that gets more complex**.

First off let's separate this from intra-day storage, estimated to be around 500GWh for the UK in a high leccy future. That's almost certainly going to come mostly from batteries. That should be enough to balance out daily variations.

But, obviously with PV having a summer preference and, how shall we put it, less than ideal generation at night, it will over and under produce at times. And wind, whilst limitless for the UK (for what we'll ever need) also has high variability.

At that point we need larger and longer scale storage. We could use batts, but they are expensive and the less you cycle them, the longer it takes to get your money back.

That's when gas (and others*) work well, as the storage part is pretty cheap, so you don't have to duplicate the production part to make the 'gas battery' bigger, just add some more cheap tanks.

So hydrogen (H2) is the obvious choice, and can burnt by thermal gas plants, or run through fuel cells for leccy. It can also be used as the basis for bio-methane (actually I suppose all methane is bio-methane, but we need to differentiate from FF gas) then again burnt for generation, or for space heating.

*Others is a long list, but the main ones would be CAES and LAES compressed air energy storage, liquid air energy storage. In short use energy to squash air, then get the energy back when it expands. Another idea is Ecotricity's green gas mills, which suggest using grass and through anerobic digestion take, and store the methane. They believe that the UK could support enough gas mills (upwards of 5,000) to produce 90%+ of future domestic gas demand.


**So, to cost, the good news here is that development is happening all over the world. In the UK Highview Power has already built smaller test plants for LAES, and say they can build 200MW/1,200MWh facilities. Australia and Japan are developing technologies, transport and legislation for the shipment of H2 from Aus to Japan, effectively transporting stored sunlight.

But also good news is that storage such as this would step in when nobody else want's the leccy. Not enough demand, batts are full etc, so the price will be as low as it goes, let's say £10 or £20/MWh, but they'd be selling back when demand is high and supply is low, so prices will high, let's say £100+. That'll help to balance out the cost and efficiency side of things.

I must be missing something here....

Curtailment is energy going to waste so any revenue that can be gained from it is a plus for the generator? This should make the cost negligible?

Producing hydrogen is pretty basic technology so that shouldn't cost much either?

Storage & transportation......is that the problem?

The internet seems to suggest that existing gas or coal fired power stations could burn hydrogen as an alternative fuel?

I'm sure it can't be that easy so what's the problem....or is it that gas is just too cheap?

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

I must be missing something here....

Curtailment is energy going to waste so any revenue that can be gained from it is a plus for the generator? This should make the cost negligible?

Producing hydrogen is pretty basic technology so that shouldn't cost much either?

Storage & transportation......is that the problem?

The internet seems to suggest that existing gas or coal fired power stations could burn hydrogen as an alternative fuel?

I'm sure it can't be that easy so what's the problem....or is it that gas is just too cheap?

The cost of the fuel source (excess gen) will be negligible, or to cover our backs, let's just say cheap as larger scale, long term storage will create a new demand source.

So the main cost part will be similar to RE, the CAPEX not the OPEX. The price the returned energy sells at, will need to cover all the build and maintenance costs (plus small leccy bill).

Think of it like a battery if the leccy was free. If the battery cost too much, then the whole proposal would be un-economic, and these are batteries that expect to see far less cycling, so therefore less opportunities to earn money.

So the cost of these schemes need to come down, their efficiencies need to rise, their size/scale needs to go up (back to costs/efficiencies again) and we need a need for them. At the moment there is not enough significant excess to make them viable, and before we get to them, we first need to tackle that inconvenient intra-day battery problem first.

I'd guess the path is something like:

More RE - curtailments - more RE - battery deployments - more RE - longer term storage.

I'm guessing again here, but long term (over 20yrs) I'd expect RE to get cheap enough that we will see some curtailment, even with short and long term storage, but that 'spill, waste, excess' is itself a form of RE support as 'a bit too much' supply will make all the other challenges a bit easier.


Edit - Yes, I've been told gas plants can burn H2 too, but we need to include all efficiency losses. Talk now is of H2 production efficiencies rising, but if we go for poorer older figures, such as 50%, then we burn the H2 at about 60% efficiency in a thermal plant, then we're now down to 30% out, and a 3.33x increase in cost needed just to cover the leccy in price, before we even consider CAPEX and other costs. But that still seems Ok to me, if it's cheap excess, and gas generation that can demand follow and fill in when supply is short. Hopefully it'll all slot together nicely.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The cost of the fuel source (excess gen) will be negligible, or to cover our backs, let's just say cheap as larger scale, long term storage will create a new demand source.

So the main cost part will be similar to RE, the CAPEX not the OPEX. The price the returned energy sells at, will need to cover all the build and maintenance costs (plus small leccy bill).

Think of it like a battery if the leccy was free. If the battery cost too much, then the whole proposal would be un-economic, and these are batteries that expect to see far less cycling, so therefore less opportunities to earn money.

So the cost of these schemes need to come down, their efficiencies need to rise, their size/scale needs to go up (back to costs/efficiencies again) and we need a need for them. At the moment there is not enough significant excess to make them viable, and before we get to them, we first need to tackle that inconvenient intra-day battery problem first.

I'd guess the path is something like:

More RE - curtailments - more RE - battery deployments - more RE - longer term storage.

I'm guessing again here, but long term (over 20yrs) I'd expect RE to get cheap enough that we will see some curtailment, even with short and long term storage, but that 'spill, waste, excess' is itself a form of RE support as 'a bit too much' supply will make all the other challenges a bit easier.


Edit - Yes, I've been told gas plants can burn H2 too, but we need to include all efficiency losses. Talk now is of H2 production efficiencies rising, but if we go for poorer older figures, such as 50%, then we burn the H2 at about 60% efficiency in a thermal plant, then we're now down to 30% out, and a 3.33x increase in cost needed just to cover the leccy in price, before we even consider CAPEX and other costs. But that still seems Ok to me, if it's cheap excess, and gas generation that can demand follow and fill in when supply is short. Hopefully it'll all slot together nicely.

If we already have the windmills the CAPEX is covered. One would imagine that the wear & tear isn’t that great & it’s not inconceivable that applying the brakes in order to curtail costs as much as keeping it spinning.....is that how it works? Hydrogen plants can be built right next to the power station as it doesn’t matter where the excess energy is drawn from the grid. Using an almost redundant coal fired power station would minimise more CAPEX.

That leaves the cost of the hydrogen plant, the cost of hydrogen storage & whatever is necessary to convert a coal furnace to burn hydrogen.....internet suggests that the last bit is doable.

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

I must be missing something here....

Curtailment is energy going to waste so any revenue that can be gained from it is a plus for the generator? This should make the cost negligible?

Producing hydrogen is pretty basic technology so that shouldn't cost much either?

Storage & transportation......is that the problem?

The internet seems to suggest that existing gas or coal fired power stations could burn hydrogen as an alternative fuel?

I'm sure it can't be that easy so what's the problem....or is it that gas is just too cheap?

Better and more likely to just build more Interconnectors and export the excess and when in need import someone else's excess

The UK will have some 20GW of links to rEU
No reason (beyond cost which doesn't matter to the environmental movement) we couldn't have 20GW links to Canada & USA plus these links could get cheaper and cheaper

Or better yet a multipoint HVDC world grid
That will actually happen I'm sure if that nothing to do with fossil fuels or renewables just the world will go to a type 1 civilization and that will require a world gird

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

If we already have the windmills the CAPEX is covered. One would imagine that the wear & tear isn’t that great & it’s not inconceivable that applying the brakes in order to curtail costs as much as keeping it spinning.....is that how it works? Hydrogen plants can be built right next to the power station as it doesn’t matter where the excess energy is drawn from the grid. Using an almost redundant coal fired power station would minimise more CAPEX.

Some things to consider

You don't need an old coal plant you can build a gas turbine power station one not far from a friend's house is being built 300MW for £90M highly automated small dense power station and it Ramps up and down very quickly unlike a coal station infrastructure

That is to say OCGT would be used not X-coal plants

That leaves the cost of the hydrogen plant

You are assuming the wind power companies will want to sell you electricity for free why would they?

EDF has a lot of spare nuclear capacity they don't dump it all onto the grid to lower prices to zero
I'm sure apple could crank out 50% more iPhones but to do so they could have to crash iPhone prices. Makes no sense to flood the market with your product just because you can

It's better for EDF to sell 9 units of energy for $50 a unit than to sell 10 units of energy for $5 a unit.
In the first case they have income of $450 and in the second case income of $50 and are bankrupted

But let's say you offer the wind farms a new subsidy in 15 years time when their current CFDs end so they maximize output and crash wholesale prices to very low or even zero numbers

Who is to say new demand won't appear at wholesale prices of £5/MWh rather than £50/MWh today?

Maybe I will invent a smart thermostat so homeowners like me can set two temperatures depending on the wholesale price? So when there is excess wind I want to heat my home to 23 centigrade rather than the normal 20 centigrade when prices are not low? Adding a huge amount of demand mopping up excess before it's given away for free.

But let's pretend a new CFD is given so the wind farms don't ration output
Let's pretend no new demand appears at the lower price point
So you have at some points free electricity to run your hydrogen plants

We'll just because the feedstock (electricity) is free doesn't mean the end product is economical
In the same way wind is free but wind electricity isn't free

What's more the capital cost of your electricity to hydrogen infrastructure has to be really cheap because you might only be running it for 10% of the year. The number of employees the land required everything has to be super efficient because of such a low number of hours employed per year. Plus it's not as easy as you imagine it's not just electricity in water.

Let's say everything is solved you find a really cheap way to do all of this

The question then is why?
Hydrogen leaks and can cause ozone depletion
Hydrogen is far more explosive than methane
Hydrogen burns in a spectrum humans can barely see (ultraviolet)
Hydrogen embrittles steel making transport and storage more difficult
Electricity to hydrogen back to electricity will top out around 33% efficient (the OCGT used to turn hydrogen onto electricity is 40% efficient and there are losses from electricity to hydrogen)


Why do all of the above when you can just build more Interconnectors and as the tech gets cheaper build interconntors to more far away places?

But anyway none of this is a problem for at least another 20 years there is no need to worry about curtailment for a long time. Hybrid boilers will mop up any excess at effective virtual efficiencies of 150%+

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

If we already have the windmills the CAPEX is covered. One would imagine that the wear & tear isn’t that great & it’s not inconceivable that applying the brakes in order to curtail costs as much as keeping it spinning.....is that how it works? Hydrogen plants can be built right next to the power station as it doesn’t matter where the excess energy is drawn from the grid. Using an almost redundant coal fired power station would minimise more CAPEX.

That leaves the cost of the hydrogen plant, the cost of hydrogen storage & whatever is necessary to convert a coal furnace to burn hydrogen.....internet suggests that the last bit is doable.

I'm referring to the CAPEX of the storage plant, be it H2, CAES, LAES etc.. This will be significant and the income part comes from cycling it, which may be infrequent.

But, despite the obvious negatives, this is certainly where we seem to be heading, and I believe will be profitable once RE penetration gets high enough, and significant curtailment starts to occur.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm referring to the CAPEX of the storage plant, be it H2, CAES, LAES etc.. This will be significant and the income part comes from cycling it, which may be infrequent.

But, despite the obvious negatives, this is certainly where we seem to be heading, and I believe will be profitable once RE penetration gets high enough, and significant curtailment starts to occur.

Keeping coal fired power stations ticking over to provide back up can't be cheap?

The amount of curtailment will inevitably rise as more wind capacity is added. Using that 'spill' to provide back up & maintain the grid frequency seems to make perfect sense....even with efficiency of 30%. As it stands, 100% of nothing is still nothing so even 30% is worthwhile. I suppose it all depends on the cost verses a battery?

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

How does it kick start the adoption of EVs

People aren't against EVs they are just unaffordable for most people

The best selling car in the UK is the ford fiesta which costs £12k brand new

A model 3 costs £40k it's not about kick starting anything it's about EVs getting affordable which they will in due course irrespective of the UK gifting Tesla model X buyers £50k gifts

That £50k could be used on healthcare or used to purchase outright solar for 10 homes


Just to confirm my understanding is

If I have £100k profits I can pay corporate tax then divi tax which is almost exactly £50k tax to the government and £50k for me

Or I can purchase a model X with that £100k write it down straight away
Give it to myself and pay no tax in the first year very very little tax in the second year and very little tax in the third year (about £1k tax in total)

At the end of the third year period I can sell this car to myself for say £30k since it's 3 years old and depreciated. The company now has £30k which I can pay corp tax and divi tax on.

So I end up paying in total about £16k tax using this method rather than £50k tax
£34k tax 'saved'

If this is correct this is ridiculous
A £34k subsidy to the wealthy

If you want to increase EV adoption give away some free perks like ability to drive in bus lanes or free government charging points (that will hardly be used) not £34k tax breaks to the wealthy

I've had a bit of time to look at the actual numbers....

Using a typical 320D M Sport manual & assuming the driver pays tax at a marginal rate of 40%.

Car benefit saving: £4500pa
Fuel benefit saving: £3000pa

The cost of charging can be paid for by the employer without any attributable BIK.....there's even the possibility of invoicing your employer for home charging as long as you declare the income on your tax return.

The only caveat to the above figures is that many CC drivers don't take the fuel benefit because the tax is ridiculous unless you do a huge private mileage...well over 20K pa. The only way you can do that many private miles is with a very long home to office journey every day.

The 100% first year WDA is more of a 'timing' benefit rather than monetary benefit. What it could help with is funding the deposit for EVs. £40000 Model 3 x 18% CT = £7200 assuming the business makes at least £40K profit.

I suspect that many employees that opted out of the CC scheme may opt back in & choose an EV next time. How long they stay in the CC scheme will depend on how fast & how far the EV BIK rates increase.

You may view all this as giving money to the wealthy, others may see it as temporarily giving your own money back to you. I can't think of any CC drivers I know that view their CC as a 'benefit' ....most of them see it as a millstone these days.

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

Keeping coal fired power stations ticking over to provide back up can't be cheap?

The amount of curtailment will inevitably rise as more wind capacity is added. Using that 'spill' to provide back up & maintain the grid frequency seems to make perfect sense....even with efficiency of 30%. As it stands, 100% of nothing is still nothing so even 30% is worthwhile. I suppose it all depends on the cost verses a battery?

But why do electricity to hydrogen back to electricity at about 33% efficiency (and creating waste in the process)

This all reeks of accounting tricks to confuse you the government and the consumer

Are you aware you are actually paying for 3 units of wind power and only getting one unit back?
So the electricity will cost at least 4 x the price of offshore wind power

If offshore wind power costs £50/MWh that means your hydrogen stored energy is actually going to cost you £200/MWh

You are much better off building more Interconnectors
Build interconntors to Canada and the USA & Build more to Norway

When you are in need of power import from them for £50/MWh
When you have too much export to them for £50/MWh

The return trip of sending units out to Norway or France or Germany and then importing at some future date... Is closer to 90-95% efficient Vs your 33% or so for hydrogen so you actually need less overall infrastructure.


Having said that there will be the need to do some electricity to hydrogen to make ammonia for fertilisers. And perhaps electricity to hydrogen to be used as liquid hydrogen fuel for aircraft. Perhaps you can run those on excess electricity but it makes little sense to do electricity to chemicals and back to electricity when much more efficient options exist