Wind being curtailed tonight

GreatApe

Time to improve productivity

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

While hearing via smart resistance heaters

Hmm I bet that's how the bear AI hears.

zeupater

ABrass wrote: »

Interconnectors don't help with frequency stability do they? So they won't help a tiny bit in the scenario listed in the OP.

Hi

Correct, not in a conventional load frequency control way .... to allow frequency & voltage differentials between the UK grid and whatever it's connected to, the interconnectors are HVDC with AC conversion at both ends so there's no inherent AC frequency to reinforce the grid, just DC conversion to AC to match current grid frequency conditions as is the case with solar PV inverters, the difference simply being scale ....

The benefit afforded by the HVDC interconnectors or any other inverter based generation is related to supply/demand balancing to relieve load from electromechanical energy sources ... as higher demand increases load on electromechanical generation the generators progressively labour & slow causing AC frequency to drop, so when HVDC supply is ramped up at a matched low frequency, the load on the electromechanical turbines is relieved, they speed up & the frequency is raised back towards the nominal 50Hz conditions which the converters & inverters track & match.


HTH
Z

ABrass

That makes sense, they work the same as battery systems. They don't add inertia but they can scale up or down very quickly to alleviate the excess/shortfall that the inertia is addressing.

Isn't that also part of what Hornsdale does in Australia? In other words won't we need less inertia once battery systems start coming on line in bulk, allowing a higher RE component?

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Your combi boiler won't be 90% efficient when heating water for the taps
That's why you see steam out the flu when you turn the hot water tap on
It's not condensing and your operating at a lower efficiency perhaps in the 70-85% region

And no I'm not claiming it takes 360Wh to heat up the water and rads in a home it depends on your particular setup there isn't a one figure correct answer you'd need to know the exact setup to figure that out. More rads bigger pipe more energy needed. Either way it's an almost irrelevant number. I think 2KWh would be more likely so you'd need to fire up the gas electric combo for about 5 minutes then let the electric take over. If the electric isn't sufficient alone each time the rads fall to say 50 centigrade the gas would kick in and when at 60 centigrade the gas would kick out. Of total heat demand is under 3KW it would be all electric. If demand is 4KW then 3/4 units would be electric and so on

How much heat is lost in the winter for a house depends on the house
But yes I'd imagine 3KW of heat power isn't far off for a normal winter day for a terrace house
That's equals to about 80KWh of natural gas per day Which seems about right

My own home is closer to 5KW but it has no insulation and has solid walls

So, the physicist started out at 1 minute, and now we need 2kWh, which from a 24kWh 77.5% (average of your figures) would be ~6.5 mins (not 5 mins) so already 550% greater than you first 'calculated'?

Martyn1981

ABrass wrote: »

That makes sense, they work the same as battery systems. They don't add inertia but they can scale up or down very quickly to alleviate the excess/shortfall that the inertia is addressing.

Isn't that also part of what Hornsdale does in Australia? In other words won't we need less inertia once battery systems start coming on line in bulk, allowing a higher RE component?

Yes. In the UK batteries are already starting to win FFR contracts (firm frequency response), and as you say in Aus, the big battery solved a problem in a neighbouring state (almost for fun?) until the kit there sprung into action several seconds later.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

With regards to global warming I've already stated my views
I think humans definitely impact the world (at every level) especially through land use
I just don't think it's likely to be anything other than a very slight net movement either positive or negative and the impact will be negligible and that we will have the tech and productivity to geoengineer whole planets let alone nudge a temperature one or two degrees up or down

So I don't worry about it because it's a negligible problem with easy solutions down the line

I also don't like the posturing and nonsense and holiness about it all
I'm pro helping people and you can do this in many ways like helping the poor develop or giving to charities not by patting your back about how great you are because you stuck some Chinese panels on your roof and were paid to do it. Come over here let me pat you on the back....well done Marty well done you

I'm afraid science says you are wrong, even if Ken agrees with your post.

You may not agree with 'green and ethical' but that doesn't give you the right to troll this board. You've set out your beliefs, job done, no need to keep on keeping on.

Reed_Richards

My old house was a 4 bedroom detached built in 1970. I heated radiators and hot water (tank set to 50 C) with a modulating condensing gas boiler (no immersion heater). I lived in East Anglia. My annual consumption was 18500 kWh of gas with the living-room thermostat set to ramp-up the temperature during the day to a maximum of 19.5 C. Averaged over the entire year that is over 2 kW (i.e. 2 kWh per hour) or just over 50 kWh per day. The boiler was off overnight. As it was a modulating boiler you could see how hard it was working and the time when it need its full 24 kW output was when it came on in the morning and needed to warm-up the house rapidly.

GreatApe wrote: »

That's why you see steam out the flu....

You can't see steam; I would have thought a physicist would know that.

mmmmikey

GreatApe wrote: »

With regards to global warming I've already stated my views
I think humans definitely impact the world (at every level) especially through land use
I just don't think it's likely to be anything other than a very slight net movement either positive or negative and the impact will be negligible and that we will have the tech and productivity to geoengineer whole planets let alone nudge a temperature one or two degrees up or down

So I don't worry about it because it's a negligible problem with easy solutions down the line

I also don't like the posturing and nonsense and holiness about it all
I'm pro helping people and you can do this in many ways like helping the poor develop or giving to charities not by patting your back about how great you are because you stuck some Chinese panels on your roof and were paid to do it. Come over here let me pat you on the back....well done Marty well done you

Given that the views you have previously expressed have been that the Chernobyl meltdown was no big deal and that humanity will soon come to an end when we are overrun by robots I suppose, if nothing else, this post is consistent with the crass, blind stupidity that you have exhibited on this forum from time to time and undermines what little credibility you have left.

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

Why would you use the empty to full figure?

You need to look at how much the average EV will use and thus need to be topped up by
Average UK mileage is about 7,100 miles a year or roughly 20 miles per day
At 4.2 miles per kWh and 85% charge efficiency and rounding up to the nearest whole number you get 6KWh of storage per car multiply by 2 million cars and they can absorb 12GWh if ALL of them are charged at night which won't be the case at all

This 12GWh is useful but not that big a deal
And I said it was a trivial figure compared to how much will be curtailed in five years time when these 2 million EVs exist

In five years time we will have 10GW more offshore wind
A day like yesterday would mean in excess of 100GWh curtailed so those EVs might be able to mop up 10% you need a solution for the other 90%


Edit:

Also to compare a single 1.4 GW link to Norway can absorb 33.6 GWh compared to the 12GWh for two million model 3s. As can be seen interconntors are more effective and important at least at this stage

While hearing via smart resistance heaters would potentially allow 50GWh - 500GWh per day of curtailment relief depending on summer/winter

The TM3 will replace vehicles like the 3 Series which have a much higher annual mileage than 7100.