The Alternative Green Energy Thread

Verdigris

You are quite right that we need much more storage but what I have been arguing for some time is that the  roll out of renewables and storage needs to be coordinated

I'd almost go so far as to say the storage should have come first, given the timescales required for the longer term elements, like pumped storage. Three or four decades ago would have been the time to start because whether we ultimately had gone down a nuclear or a renewables route, or a mixed portfolio, large scale storage would be required.

QrizB

JKenH said:

The average day ahead price on 25th January 2022 was £327.61 compared to £179.66 for the following 7 days, an 82% increase.

I'm happy to agree that energy prices are volatile at the moment.

For comparing day-ahead prices, I quite like the Nordpool site:

https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/Market-data1/GB/Auction-prices/UK/Daily/?view=table

I think it defaults to displaying prices in Euros, so be sure to change it to GBP for the UK market.

JKenH

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

The average day ahead price on 25th January 2022 was £327.61 compared to £179.66 for the following 7 days, an 82% increase.

I'm happy to agree that energy prices are volatile at the moment.

..and perhaps that the spikes coincide with low wind?

JKenH

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

The average day ahead price on 25th January 2022 was £327.61 compared to £179.66 for the following 7 days, an 82% increase.

For comparing day-ahead prices, I quite like the Nordpool site:

https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/Market-data1/GB/Auction-prices/UK/Daily/?view=table

I think it defaults to displaying prices in Euros, so be sure to change it to GBP for the UK market.

That’s useful thanks.

JKenH

Verdigris said:

You are quite right that we need much more storage but what I have been arguing for some time is that the  roll out of renewables and storage needs to be coordinated

I'd almost go so far as to say the storage should have come first, given the timescales required for the longer term elements, like pumped storage. Three or four decades ago would have been the time to start because whether we ultimately had gone down a nuclear or a renewables route, or a mixed portfolio, large scale storage would be required.

The necessity for storage is finally being accepted on this forum, even if not elsewhere. It wasn’t long ago that it was being suggested we could just overbuild wind and solar to solve the problem. 

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/07/the-best-electricity-plan-overbuild-solar-wind-power-plants/

shinytop

JKenH said:

Verdigris said:

You are quite right that we need much more storage but what I have been arguing for some time is that the  roll out of renewables and storage needs to be coordinated

I'd almost go so far as to say the storage should have come first, given the timescales required for the longer term elements, like pumped storage. Three or four decades ago would have been the time to start because whether we ultimately had gone down a nuclear or a renewables route, or a mixed portfolio, large scale storage would be required.

The necessity for storage is finally being accepted on this forum, even if not elsewhere. It wasn’t long ago that it was being suggested we could just overbuild wind and solar to solve the problem. 

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/07/the-best-electricity-plan-overbuild-solar-wind-power-plants/

I wonder why it took so long because I think most people can grasp that zero percent of a squillion is still zero.  

Verdigris

Well I haven't been in doubt that we need storage, for many a long year.

I think you can fairly argue that we've needed storage since WW2. There are two Holy Grails in electricity supply. One is to perfectly balance supply and demand to maintain a 50Hz frequency; the other is to flatten the demand curve over a 24 hour period. With sufficient storage, of varying periodicity, you would need less generating plant, of any type, because the FF and nuclear would be running at optimal output and any variable inputs from RE, could be accomodated, either way.

Dinorwig was a great success, you'd have thought that would have given the powers-that-be a clue.

QrizB

shinytop said:

JKenH said:

Verdigris said:

You are quite right that we need much more storage but what I have been arguing for some time is that the  roll out of renewables and storage needs to be coordinated

I'd almost go so far as to say the storage should have come first, given the timescales required for the longer term elements, like pumped storage. Three or four decades ago would have been the time to start because whether we ultimately had gone down a nuclear or a renewables route, or a mixed portfolio, large scale storage would be required.

The necessity for storage is finally being accepted on this forum, even if not elsewhere. It wasn’t long ago that it was being suggested we could just overbuild wind and solar to solve the problem. 

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/07/the-best-electricity-plan-overbuild-solar-wind-power-plants/

I wonder why it took so long because I think most people can grasp that zero percent of a squillion is still zero. 

You must both be reading a different article to the one at the link:

Their conclusion in 2012 was: yes, just overbuild wind and solar, with some energy storage and fuel cells mixed in.

And the 2012 article states:

Analysts at UD and DTCC suggest a well-developed mixture of solar, wind, fuel cells, and battery storage would produce greater supply than electricity demand, plus keep energy costs low.

It seems the need for storage was acknowledged a decade ago.

JKenH

QrizB said:

shinytop said:

JKenH said:

Verdigris said:

You are quite right that we need much more storage but what I have been arguing for some time is that the  roll out of renewables and storage needs to be coordinated

I'd almost go so far as to say the storage should have come first, given the timescales required for the longer term elements, like pumped storage. Three or four decades ago would have been the time to start because whether we ultimately had gone down a nuclear or a renewables route, or a mixed portfolio, large scale storage would be required.

The necessity for storage is finally being accepted on this forum, even if not elsewhere. It wasn’t long ago that it was being suggested we could just overbuild wind and solar to solve the problem. 

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/07/the-best-electricity-plan-overbuild-solar-wind-power-plants/

I wonder why it took so long because I think most people can grasp that zero percent of a squillion is still zero. 

You must both be reading a different article to the one at the link:

Their conclusion in 2012 was: yes, just overbuild wind and solar, with some energy storage and fuel cells mixed in.

And the 2012 article states:

Analysts at UD and DTCC suggest a well-developed mixture of solar, wind, fuel cells, and battery storage would produce greater supply than electricity demand, plus keep energy costs low.

It seems the need for storage was acknowledged a decade ago.

Then there was this bit:

“Meanwhile, the report found that, creating more electricity than required during regular hours to meet high energy use (but during low wind hours) would have lower costs compared to storing the excess energy for higher consumption later (of course, this is based on the assumption we won’t see any storage breakthroughs in that time).”

QrizB

JKenH said:

QrizB said:

You must both be reading a different article to the one at the link:

Their conclusion in 2012 was: yes, just overbuild wind and solar, with some energy storage and fuel cells mixed in.

And the 2012 article states:

Analysts at UD and DTCC suggest a well-developed mixture of solar, wind, fuel cells, and battery storage would produce greater supply than electricity demand, plus keep energy costs low.

It seems the need for storage was acknowledged a decade ago.

Then there was this bit:

“Meanwhile, the report found that, creating more electricity than required during regular hours to meet high energy use (but during low wind hours) would have lower costs compared to storing the excess energy for higher consumption later (of course, this is based on the assumption we won’t see any storage breakthroughs in that time).”

Yes, and?

They're just saying that abatement of peak generation weas modelled to be cheaper than trying to store every single spare kWh.

The 2012 article links back to here, which has more detail:

https://phys.org/news/2012-12-solar-power-paired-storage-cost-effective.html

During the hours when there was not enough renewable electricity to meet power needs, the model drew from storage and, on the rare hours with neither renewable electricity or stored power, then fossil fuel. When there was more renewable energy generated than needed, the model would first fill storage, use the remaining to replace natural gas for heating homes and businesses and only after those, let the excess go to waste.

And the phys.org article links to ScienceDirect where you can read the original research paper:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

From the abstract:

We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost.