EV Discussion thread

1961Nick

JKenH said:

1961Nick said:

Heat pumps & EVs are creating a demand that the generators have to respond to. Initially the response can be to turn up the CCGTs but eventually capacity & transmission will have to be addressed. As long as solar, wind & nuclear eventually satisfy the extra demand then the grid gets greener.

The slow take up of heat pumps in the UK is probably a good thing at the moment as the grid just isn't ready for mass conversion to electricity for heating. EVs have the option to charge overnight so create less of a problem. When the next generation of domestic heat pumps with an 80C flow temperature capability reach the market the grid infrastructure needs to be ready... but it probably won't be as we're likely to see them within 5 years. 

The 2 major bottlenecks for the expansion of wind generation/distribution need to be addressed by the Government - CFDs need to reflect recent cost price inflation & planning needs to be speeded up. 

But can we rely on solar, wind and nuclear to plug the gap when the gas fired stations shut down? There just isn’t enough nuclear in the pipeline and wind is too intermittent. On the morning of 16 August, wind and solar were non existent and gas was producing over 60% of our generation. Between midnight an 2pm wind never got above 1GW and at one point was as low as 0.28GW - that’s equivalent to 1% of installed capacity. Solar can at best on average contribute only half of the day but in winter is not much help. In December Solar produced less than 1% of our generation so we can forget it in terms of energy security, just as we can interconnects. When the chips are down in a European energy crisis we won’t be getting any help from across the Channel or the North Sea.

On a good day, wind can produce as much, if not more than gas but no one should plan around good days. On 16th August, looking at the day as a whole, wind could only produce a twentieth of demand and a tenth of what gas contributed that day. Too many people are promoting wind as a replacement for gas based on hype from the renewables sector without looking at the reality. The good news is constantly being pushed and the bad news swept under the carpet. Everyone talks about averages and conveniently forgets the peaks and troughs. Very little investment is being made in long term storage. There is lots of news coming out about storage projects but not at the TWh scale we need. We could well end up keeping most of our existing gas capacity on standby at enormous cost.

We used 0.35 TWh of gas on 16th August and wind produced 0.3TWh. With 5 times our current wind capacity (say 135GW) we would have produced 0.15 TWh - that’s still a 0.2TWh shortfall. Then what do we do with 135GW on a windy day. If we produce 100GW for 24 hours that’s 2.4 TWh. Our demand may have doubled but we are still going to be curtailing half that wind as we won’t have anywhere to store it. It is not unusual to get several windy days in a row. Does anyone factor in the cost of storage and curtailment when assessing the cost of wind? I understand the climate change argument for building out lots more wind but you are sensible enough to realise that the cost will be enormous compared to our present set up and that will land with the consumer. 

Out of interest how much wind capacity would you say we will be needed to replace gas? And how much storage? 

Why would we want to shut the CCGT plants down? As you say, they'll be needed for when there's a lull in renewable generation. I guess long term some of them could be converted to run on hydrogen assuming we have a surplus of wind energy to produce it.

michaels

How much is that 'enormous cost' for having little utilised gas back up capacity? 

If the units produced by wind and PV are much cheaper than those produced by gas (even if the CCGTs were running full time) then the overall cost of RE plus gas backup is likely less than the overall cost of 100% gas generation.

One way of looking at it would be how much would it cost per unit to build out say 200% of nominal demand in wind capacity plus a backup facility of100% nominal demand of CCGT with the wind supplying 90% of overall demand and the gas 10% compared to simply building the CCGT capacity and using gas for 100% of generation?  Running the gas at 10% of utilisation obviously increases the fixed component of energy produced from gas by 90% but depending on the variable costs it is still easy for wind plus gas to work out cheaper than gas alone. 

Eg if gas generation with full time use of stations costs 1p capital per unit and 19p gas per unit then with 10% utilisation the cost goes up to 10p capital plus 19p gas.  Suppose wind cost 10p per unit when built out to 200% demand.

Then to generate 100kwh using just gas would cost 20p x 100 = £20
To generate 100kwh using wind (90%) plus gas (10%) would cost 10p x 90 plus 29p x 10 = £11.90

JKenH

michaels said:

How much is that 'enormous cost' for having little utilised gas back up capacity? 

If the units produced by wind and PV are much cheaper than those produced by gas (even if the CCGTs were running full time) then the overall cost of RE plus gas backup is likely less than the overall cost of 100% gas generation.

One way of looking at it would be how much would it cost per unit to build out say 200% of nominal demand in wind capacity plus a backup facility of100% nominal demand of CCGT with the wind supplying 90% of overall demand and the gas 10% compared to simply building the CCGT capacity and using gas for 100% of generation?  Running the gas at 10% of utilisation obviously increases the fixed component of energy produced from gas by 90% but depending on the variable costs it is still easy for wind plus gas to work out cheaper than gas alone. 

Eg if gas generation with full time use of stations costs 1p capital per unit and 19p gas per unit then with 10% utilisation the cost goes up to 10p capital plus 19p gas.  Suppose wind cost 10p per unit when built out to 200% demand.

Then to generate 100kwh using just gas would cost 20p x 100 = £20
To generate 100kwh using wind (90%) plus gas (10%) would cost 10p x 90 plus 29p x 10 = £11.90

I think that approach is eminently sensible. I hope your costs are right. I don’t know what the split is between capital cost and fuel cost for a CCGT but on top of the fuel there will be operating costs such as staff costs, business rates insurances all to be spread over a tenth of the normal output. On top of that there will be the inefficiencies associated with cold starts and just keeping the plant ticking over.

Part of that “enormous cost” I had in mind was curtailment. If we curtail half of the wind generation then the cost/kWh doubles. 

Edit: the original Climate Change Act committed to an 80% reduction in CO2 compared to 1990 levels. If we had stayed at that figure then the problem would be a whole lot more manageable. The change to Net Zero by 2050 would have given us a lot more scope to operate gas peaker plants alongside renewables. Under the plan Net Zero all electricity generation has to be carbon free so no gas plants.

I did find this:

The operating costs stated in this report are based on a standard 8000 hours base load operation per annum. O&M contracts are usually based on Equivalent Operating Hours (EOH) (or equivalent schemes as offered by the various OEMs). Although the specific arrangements vary between individual contracts, in most cases manufacturers attribute a number of hours to a start, trip and other associated events.

Under an operating regime with greater frequency of starts and stops (e.g., two-shifting) the number of occasions when CCGT plants are brought on and off would increase the EOH. Hence there would be an increase in the £/MWh variable cost element of the O&M cost. In recent years design changes for newer machines allow CCGT plant to be started and stopped with less impact on EOH, so the impact may be lower than in the past.

A CCGT running 7 am to 7 pm, 5 days a week (total 60 hours) would accrue an additional 40 EOH per week for corresponding starts, assuming 8 EOH for a start. For a 1400 MW plant this may result in variable costs of £10.6m rather than £6.2m for operation at base load. There would be no additional output with respect to the additional 40 EOH per week and therefore the cost of operation per MWh output would increase from of £1.43 per MWh for base-load stated in the summary tables in this report to £2.43 per MWh

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566803/Leigh_Fisher_Non-renewable_Generation_Cost.pdf

Reducing plant operation from full time to 60 hours per week increases the operating cost by 70%.

Edit: CCGT plants are not ideal for intermittent use. It may be cheaper to shut them down and replace with OCGT peaker plants.

JKenH

1961Nick said:

JKenH said:

1961Nick said:

Heat pumps & EVs are creating a demand that the generators have to respond to. Initially the response can be to turn up the CCGTs but eventually capacity & transmission will have to be addressed. As long as solar, wind & nuclear eventually satisfy the extra demand then the grid gets greener.

The slow take up of heat pumps in the UK is probably a good thing at the moment as the grid just isn't ready for mass conversion to electricity for heating. EVs have the option to charge overnight so create less of a problem. When the next generation of domestic heat pumps with an 80C flow temperature capability reach the market the grid infrastructure needs to be ready... but it probably won't be as we're likely to see them within 5 years. 

The 2 major bottlenecks for the expansion of wind generation/distribution need to be addressed by the Government - CFDs need to reflect recent cost price inflation & planning needs to be speeded up. 

But can we rely on solar, wind and nuclear to plug the gap when the gas fired stations shut down? There just isn’t enough nuclear in the pipeline and wind is too intermittent. On the morning of 16 August, wind and solar were non existent and gas was producing over 60% of our generation. Between midnight an 2pm wind never got above 1GW and at one point was as low as 0.28GW - that’s equivalent to 1% of installed capacity. Solar can at best on average contribute only half of the day but in winter is not much help. In December Solar produced less than 1% of our generation so we can forget it in terms of energy security, just as we can interconnects. When the chips are down in a European energy crisis we won’t be getting any help from across the Channel or the North Sea.

On a good day, wind can produce as much, if not more than gas but no one should plan around good days. On 16th August, looking at the day as a whole, wind could only produce a twentieth of demand and a tenth of what gas contributed that day. Too many people are promoting wind as a replacement for gas based on hype from the renewables sector without looking at the reality. The good news is constantly being pushed and the bad news swept under the carpet. Everyone talks about averages and conveniently forgets the peaks and troughs. Very little investment is being made in long term storage. There is lots of news coming out about storage projects but not at the TWh scale we need. We could well end up keeping most of our existing gas capacity on standby at enormous cost.

We used 0.35 TWh of gas on 16th August and wind produced 0.3TWh. With 5 times our current wind capacity (say 135GW) we would have produced 0.15 TWh - that’s still a 0.2TWh shortfall. Then what do we do with 135GW on a windy day. If we produce 100GW for 24 hours that’s 2.4 TWh. Our demand may have doubled but we are still going to be curtailing half that wind as we won’t have anywhere to store it. It is not unusual to get several windy days in a row. Does anyone factor in the cost of storage and curtailment when assessing the cost of wind? I understand the climate change argument for building out lots more wind but you are sensible enough to realise that the cost will be enormous compared to our present set up and that will land with the consumer. 

Out of interest how much wind capacity would you say we will be needed to replace gas? And how much storage? 

Why would we want to shut the CCGT plants down? As you say, they'll be needed for when there's a lull in renewable generation. I guess long term some of them could be converted to run on hydrogen assuming we have a surplus of wind energy to produce it.

Sorry Nick, I thought that comment was from @michaels and covered it in my reply to him. 

The original Climate Change Act committed to an 80% reduction in CO2 compared to 1990 levels. If we had stayed at that figure then the problem would be a whole lot more manageable. The original 80% commitment would have given us a lot more scope to operate gas peaker plants alongside renewables. Under the 2019 Net Zero legislation all electricity generation has to be carbon free so effectively no gas plants, unless as @michaels pointed out CCS technology is employed. 

I think keeping some gas plants open is essential as renewables are just too intermittent. It may be more efficient to close the CCGT plants, though and replace them with OCGT peaker plants. 

Apologies also for misunderstanding your comment in your earlier post when you referred to nuclear solar and wind satisfying demand (but not gas). I assumed (erroneously) you wanted gas out of the equation.

Edited - to correct poor wording and add CCS comment. 

michaels

Thanks, I think somewhere in the small print for net zero it includes some CCS hence the 'net' bit, I thought this was to cover stuff like aviation but perhaps it is also for gas generation when needed?

I put the wind cost at 10p which is double the recent CFD results to account for the curtailment, the CCGT costs were for example only, there is the data out there (for example build cost is about £1bn per GW) but it would not be a five minute task to get my head around it.  Also would need some modelling to work out how much wind would be needed for it to provide 90% of usage etc

JKenH

Half of company cars delivered in Q1 were fully electric

Half (49%) of the company cars delivered in the first quarter of 2023 were battery electric vehicles (BEV), according to the latest data from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA).

The high proportion of fully electric company cars, detailed in the latest BVRLA Leasing Outlook Report, suggest that was thanks, in part, to a booming salary sacrifice market, which grew 41% year-on-year, with 91% of registrations pure electric.

To put this into perspective, for every petrol car obtained by salary sacrifice in the first three months of this year, there were 45 battery electric cars. It’s also encouraging that the larger leasing fleet is itself getting far cleaner, with 43% of new cars battery electric.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/electric-fleet-news/2023/08/23/half-of-company-cars-delivered-in-q1-were-fully-electric

JKenH

Used EV prices showing signs of stabilising as supply levels begin to fall – Auto Trader

The used EV market is showing signs of stabilising after a year of plummeting prices.

That is according to fresh data from Auto Trader which suggests that falling values could finally be beginning to slow following.

The firm’s latest Retail Price Index found that in the month to August 20, used EV prices dropped by just 0.3 per cent month-on-month.

The figure is the lowest level of monthly contraction seen since July of last year, with the average price of a used EV on Auto Trader now standing at £35,297.

Experts say the reduction in decline is down to a dip in sky-high levels of supply in recent months, which have far exceeded demand.

There are now only 12,000 second-hand EVs for sale each day on Auto Trader, down from over 18,000 in early March.

https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/used-ev-prices-showing-signs-of-stabilising-as-supply-levels-begin-to-fall-auto-trader/288653

QrizB

JKenH said:

I’ve done a bit more research and the relationship between Agile prices and wholesale prices is explained on the energy stats uk website as follows...

• Times that by 2.2 = 27p (this is the standard Agile multiplier)
• Because it’s not 4pm – 7pm there is no more to add (otherwise add 12p at peak times)

You might already know this but for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread the multiplier varies from 2.0 to 2.4 depending on supply region. And the 4-7pm peak adder varies from 11p to 14p.

See https://www.guylipman.com/octopus/formulas.html for details (there's also an official Octopus page with all the formulas, but I don't seem to be able to find it right now).

michaels

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

I’ve done a bit more research and the relationship between Agile prices and wholesale prices is explained on the energy stats uk website as follows...

• Times that by 2.2 = 27p (this is the standard Agile multiplier)
• Because it’s not 4pm – 7pm there is no more to add (otherwise add 12p at peak times)

You might already know this but for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread the multiplier varies from 2.0 to 2.4 depending on supply region. And the 4-7pm peak adder varies from 11p to 14p.

See https://www.guylipman.com/octopus/formulas.html for details (there's also an official Octopus page with all the formulas, but I don't seem to be able to find it right now).

I wonder why they apply a multiplier, it would seem to make more sense to apply a 'cost plus' fixed mark-up - unless of course they are using this tariff as part of a demand shaping exercise to avoid having to purchase balancing on the day leccy when it is most expensive.  Those dudes as Octopus are not stupid, I wonder if they are recruiting? 

1961Nick

JKenH said:

1961Nick said:

JKenH said:

1961Nick said:

Heat pumps & EVs are creating a demand that the generators have to respond to. Initially the response can be to turn up the CCGTs but eventually capacity & transmission will have to be addressed. As long as solar, wind & nuclear eventually satisfy the extra demand then the grid gets greener.

The slow take up of heat pumps in the UK is probably a good thing at the moment as the grid just isn't ready for mass conversion to electricity for heating. EVs have the option to charge overnight so create less of a problem. When the next generation of domestic heat pumps with an 80C flow temperature capability reach the market the grid infrastructure needs to be ready... but it probably won't be as we're likely to see them within 5 years. 

The 2 major bottlenecks for the expansion of wind generation/distribution need to be addressed by the Government - CFDs need to reflect recent cost price inflation & planning needs to be speeded up. 

But can we rely on solar, wind and nuclear to plug the gap when the gas fired stations shut down? There just isn’t enough nuclear in the pipeline and wind is too intermittent. On the morning of 16 August, wind and solar were non existent and gas was producing over 60% of our generation. Between midnight an 2pm wind never got above 1GW and at one point was as low as 0.28GW - that’s equivalent to 1% of installed capacity. Solar can at best on average contribute only half of the day but in winter is not much help. In December Solar produced less than 1% of our generation so we can forget it in terms of energy security, just as we can interconnects. When the chips are down in a European energy crisis we won’t be getting any help from across the Channel or the North Sea.

On a good day, wind can produce as much, if not more than gas but no one should plan around good days. On 16th August, looking at the day as a whole, wind could only produce a twentieth of demand and a tenth of what gas contributed that day. Too many people are promoting wind as a replacement for gas based on hype from the renewables sector without looking at the reality. The good news is constantly being pushed and the bad news swept under the carpet. Everyone talks about averages and conveniently forgets the peaks and troughs. Very little investment is being made in long term storage. There is lots of news coming out about storage projects but not at the TWh scale we need. We could well end up keeping most of our existing gas capacity on standby at enormous cost.

We used 0.35 TWh of gas on 16th August and wind produced 0.3TWh. With 5 times our current wind capacity (say 135GW) we would have produced 0.15 TWh - that’s still a 0.2TWh shortfall. Then what do we do with 135GW on a windy day. If we produce 100GW for 24 hours that’s 2.4 TWh. Our demand may have doubled but we are still going to be curtailing half that wind as we won’t have anywhere to store it. It is not unusual to get several windy days in a row. Does anyone factor in the cost of storage and curtailment when assessing the cost of wind? I understand the climate change argument for building out lots more wind but you are sensible enough to realise that the cost will be enormous compared to our present set up and that will land with the consumer. 

Out of interest how much wind capacity would you say we will be needed to replace gas? And how much storage? 

Why would we want to shut the CCGT plants down? As you say, they'll be needed for when there's a lull in renewable generation. I guess long term some of them could be converted to run on hydrogen assuming we have a surplus of wind energy to produce it.

Sorry Nick, I thought that comment was from @michaels and covered it in my reply to him. 

The original Climate Change Act committed to an 80% reduction in CO2 compared to 1990 levels. If we had stayed at that figure then the problem would be a whole lot more manageable. The original 80% commitment would have given us a lot more scope to operate gas peaker plants alongside renewables. Under the 2019 Net Zero legislation all electricity generation has to be carbon free so effectively no gas plants, unless as @michaels pointed out CCS technology is employed. 

I think keeping some gas plants open is essential as renewables are just too intermittent. It may be more efficient to close the CCGT plants, though and replace them with OCGT peaker plants. 

Apologies also for misunderstanding your comment in your earlier post when you referred to nuclear solar and wind satisfying demand (but not gas). I assumed (erroneously) you wanted gas out of the equation.

Edited - to correct poor wording and add CCS comment. 

Fast start CCGTs would work well with renewables providing both short term load balancing as well as cover for extended lulls in wind generation... & at a reasonable cost. As the amount of storage increases the need for fast start CCGTs & OCGTs will reduce & regular CCGTs would be sufficient.