Energy rationing

FreeBear

70sbudgie said:

FreeBear said:

70sbudgie said: Also, until grid scale batteries became a thing (about 6 years ago - it co-oincided with my mat leave, so I have a good time marker), electricity couldn't be stored.

Not quite true. We have had pumped storage hydroelectric plants (four of them) in the UK  since the 1960s. Admittedly, not as efficient as battery storage, and with a longer start up time. Still, they provide a valuable backup for the grid in times of stress.

Apologies, you are correct. I don't know what total capacity they are.

Cruachan - 400MW

Dinorwig - 1728MW

Ffestiniog - 360MW

Foyers - 300MW

Total, just shy of 2.8GW - Not too shabby, but no where near enough to take up the slack if there is a major failure elsewhere.

There are moves to build more capacity, an planning permission has been granted for a couple of schemes. Whether they come to fruition is open to debate - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-57510870

70sbudgie

FreeBear said:

Total, just shy of 2.8GW - Not too shabby, but no where near enough to take up the slack if there is a major failure elsewhere.

4 plants with more than 1/3 of the capacity of the 5 nuclear sites. And perhaps a quarter of the build time for new. 

Hmm.

So what are the potential environmental consequences of constructing a new pumped storage plant? 

FreeBear

70sbudgie said:

FreeBear said:

Total, just shy of 2.8GW - Not too shabby, but no where near enough to take up the slack if there is a major failure elsewhere.

4 plants with more than 1/3 of the capacity of the 5 nuclear sites. And perhaps a quarter of the build time for new. 

Hmm.

So what are the potential environmental consequences of constructing a new pumped storage plant? 

Aside from flooding a valley or two and the possible risk of a dam collapse, a lot less than a large nuclear plant.

TheBanker

Despite what Truss says, it makes sense to have plans to deal with an energy shortage and planned blackouts are better than unplanned ones. Whilst I hope the plans don't need to be used, at least if they do we should get some advance warning. That lets people plan better e.g. making sure phones are charged and torches are to hand with working batteries. Depending on how geographically widespread the outages are, and availability of transport, people could agree to go to a friend or relative's house for the duration (then invite them to yours when it's their turn to be off). 

The first winter I was here, we had a three hour power cut. The neighbours said power outages used to be common although there hadn't been any for a few years. And last winter we had another lengthy power cut when lightening struck a cable. Despite these being unplanned, everyone coped. The thing that benefitted me the most was having a fully charged power bank for my phone. Normally used when I go out on a long journey, it meant I could still access the internet via 4G - so I could keep an eye on the power distributor's website to see what was happening. And if, god forbid, there had been an emergency I could have still called 999.

Essentially, I think denying that power outages are a possibility is denying reality. We need politicians to be honest with us, so that people can make sensible preparations. I don't mean buying generators and stockpiling diesel, I mean things like getting into the habit of keeping their phones charged, making sure they have a torch and battery radio handy, and that they have spare batteries. And making sure that you have some food which can be eaten cold if you don't have any other means to cook.

My fear is that if people are not prepared, two things will happen. Firstly we will see panic, with all the consequences that can bring. Secondly we will see people who are unprepared using candles and other unsafe methods to light/heat their houses, which could lead to an increase in housefires and carbon monoxide poisoning. 

Outages will be a last resort though - they are already proposing financial incentives through smart meters for customers who reduce their usage at peak periods. I would imagine that if things start to get tight there will be a general request for everyone to reduce usage during certain periods, and I imagine a lot of people will do their best to support these requests. 

[Deleted User]

70sbudgie said:

FreeBear said:

Total, just shy of 2.8GW - Not too shabby, but no where near enough to take up the slack if there is a major failure elsewhere.

4 plants with more than 1/3 of the capacity of the 5 nuclear sites. And perhaps a quarter of the build time for new. 

Hmm.

So what are the potential environmental consequences of constructing a new pumped storage plant? 

Think about how long PS can actually run for. Not plant lifetime, but useful continuous generation.

They’re just not comparable options.

70sbudgie

[Deleted User] said:

70sbudgie said:

FreeBear said:

Total, just shy of 2.8GW - Not too shabby, but no where near enough to take up the slack if there is a major failure elsewhere.

4 plants with more than 1/3 of the capacity of the 5 nuclear sites. And perhaps a quarter of the build time for new. 

Hmm.

So what are the potential environmental consequences of constructing a new pumped storage plant? 

Think about how long PS can actually run for. Not plant lifetime, but useful continuous generation.

They’re just not comparable options.

I did wonder that, but I have no idea of the answer. 

For two "generation" types that are pretty unique, they are reasonably comparable. 

[Deleted User]

70sbudgie said:

Deleted_User said:

70sbudgie said:

FreeBear said:

Total, just shy of 2.8GW - Not too shabby, but no where near enough to take up the slack if there is a major failure elsewhere.

4 plants with more than 1/3 of the capacity of the 5 nuclear sites. And perhaps a quarter of the build time for new. 

Hmm.

So what are the potential environmental consequences of constructing a new pumped storage plant? 

Think about how long PS can actually run for. Not plant lifetime, but useful continuous generation.

They’re just not comparable options.

I did wonder that, but I have no idea of the answer. 

For two "generation" types that are pretty unique, they are reasonably comparable. 

Nuclear can run at maximum output continuously for months.

Pumped storage continuous output is measured in single digit hours.  You then need to consume the same amount of energy to pump the water back up again.

Pumped storage isn’t really generation, it’s just a demand time shift scheme - hence the name. It’s not hydro generation like other countries have.

Entirely different functions, purposes and capabilities. They really are not comparable.

The_Green_Hornet

QrizB said:

wrf12345 said:

Some third world countries have a choice of meters, the lower ampage ones have cheaper rates and lower s/cs, and are much cheaper to run as long as you have no serious electrical appliances - it would blow if you ran an electric shower, for instance.

@[Deleted User] has previously mentioned French tariffs that work like this- the more power you want to be able to pull from the grid, the more you pay for your connection. I wouldn't describe France as third-world.

See for example https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79402058/#Comment_79402058

A lot of people crossing the channel on inflatables think otherwise.

MattMattMattUK

The_Green_Hornet said:

QrizB said:

wrf12345 said:

Some third world countries have a choice of meters, the lower ampage ones have cheaper rates and lower s/cs, and are much cheaper to run as long as you have no serious electrical appliances - it would blow if you ran an electric shower, for instance.

@[Deleted User] has previously mentioned French tariffs that work like this- the more power you want to be able to pull from the grid, the more you pay for your connection. I wouldn't describe France as third-world.

See for example https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79402058/#Comment_79402058

A lot of people crossing the channel on inflatables think otherwise.

They would be wrong by any measure used. 

Section62

70sbudgie said:

FreeBear said:

Total, just shy of 2.8GW - Not too shabby, but no where near enough to take up the slack if there is a major failure elsewhere.

4 plants with more than 1/3 of the capacity of the 5 nuclear sites. And perhaps a quarter of the build time for new. 

Dinorwig took about 10 years to build.

Building additional pumped storage or building additional nuclear would be on a similar timescale.

And as SparkyGrad has pointed out, one doesn't fully substitute for the other as they do different things.