Economy 7 and April Increases are crazy

Section62

SnakePlissken said:

Section62 said:

SnakePlissken said:

So why does both North and South of Scotland have amongst the highest E7 tarrif?

Much of Scotland's hydro can be turned off in periods of low demand, and returned to generation relatively quickly if needed.  Hence using that capacity just to generate cheap electricity doesn't make sense. The currently operational PS capacity can also take surplus wind generation and put it to good use.

Scotland also has an extensive and expensive to maintain distribution system (compared to say East Anglia) and those costs will negatively weight the consumer prices in Scotland compared to other regions.

Do you have links to prove this?

Or is it just your own, opinion on the subject ?

It is a basic characteristic of hydro generation that it can be taken on or offline far more rapidly than thermal power stations.  The controllability of hydro is one of the reasons why pumped storage capacity was developed in the UK in the first place - e.g. Cruachan power station can go from standby to full generation in under two minutes, which can be reducd to about 30 seconds if the turbine is held in spinning reserve.

The same principles apply to conventional hydro.  Turn off the tap (slowly) and the turbines will stop.  Turn the tap back on and the turbines will restart. The reason for doing it slowly is to avoid pressure surges in the tunnels and penstocks, although many stations are equipped with surge shafts which allow them to be operated more responsively.

The operation of a hydro system also needs to be done on a holistic basis, i.e. conserving stored water when plentiful to avoid the risk of running out, drawing reservoirs down carefully not to exceed the design parameters of any dams or barages, ensuring the discharge downstream doesn't cause flooding, and making sure (wherever possible) that reserviors have reserve capacity to absorb abnormal rainfall events. In other words, unlike a nuclear power station which can be run 24/7, the operators of a hydro scheme need to achieve operational balance in a multidimensional system, rather than pump out cheap electricity all day and night.

I'm sure there are links out there on how hydro power stations work, and what their basic characteristics are, if you still require proof.

SnakePlissken said:

And is the previous claim..

Generally, the more that can be generated locally the lower the cost.     

Then false?

No.

SnakePlissken said:

And do you have evidence of maintenance cost of network in Scotland v east anglia?

As EssexHebridean suggests, this ought to be self evident to anyone with a rough idea of the geography of the two areas.

If not, the North of Scotland Hydro Board did some excellent publications on how their hydro schemes worked, and the challenges they faced with maintaining an extensive and predominantly above-ground distribution network in areas exposed to relatively extreme weather.  I can thoroughly recommend "Power from the Glens" (the original version) as a good introduction to the subject, if you can find one on the second-hand market.

SnakePlissken

Section62 said:

SnakePlissken said:

Section62 said:

SnakePlissken said:

So why does both North and South of Scotland have amongst the highest E7 tarrif?

Much of Scotland's hydro can be turned off in periods of low demand, and returned to generation relatively quickly if needed.  Hence using that capacity just to generate cheap electricity doesn't make sense. The currently operational PS capacity can also take surplus wind generation and put it to good use.

Scotland also has an extensive and expensive to maintain distribution system (compared to say East Anglia) and those costs will negatively weight the consumer prices in Scotland compared to other regions.

Do you have links to prove this?

Or is it just your own, opinion on the subject ?

It is a basic characteristic of hydro generation that it can be taken on or offline far more rapidly than thermal power stations.  The controllability of hydro is one of the reasons why pumped storage capacity was developed in the UK in the first place - e.g. Cruachan power station can go from standby to full generation in under two minutes, which can be reducd to about 30 seconds if the turbine is held in spinning reserve.

The same principles apply to conventional hydro.  Turn off the tap (slowly) and the turbines will stop.  Turn the tap back on and the turbines will restart. The reason for doing it slowly is to avoid pressure surges in the tunnels and penstocks, although many stations are equipped with surge shafts which allow them to be operated more responsively.

The operation of a hydro system also needs to be done on a holistic basis, i.e. conserving stored water when plentiful to avoid the risk of running out, drawing reservoirs down carefully not to exceed the design parameters of any dams or barages, ensuring the discharge downstream doesn't cause flooding, and making sure (wherever possible) that reserviors have reserve capacity to absorb abnormal rainfall events. In other words, unlike a nuclear power station which can be run 24/7, the operators of a hydro scheme need to achieve operational balance in a multidimensional system, rather than pump out cheap electricity all day and night.

I'm sure there are links out there on how hydro power stations work, and what their basic characteristics are, if you still require proof.

SnakePlissken said:

And is the previous claim..

Generally, the more that can be generated locally the lower the cost.     

Then false?

No.

SnakePlissken said:

And do you have evidence of maintenance cost of network in Scotland v east anglia?

As EssexHebridean suggests, this ought to be self evident to anyone with a rough idea of the geography of the two areas.

If not, the North of Scotland Hydro Board did some excellent publications on how their hydro schemes worked, and the challenges they faced with maintaining an extensive and predominantly above-ground distribution network in areas exposed to relatively extreme weather.  I can thoroughly recommend "Power from the Glens" (the original version) as a good introduction to the subject, if you can find one on the second-hand market.

Im fully aware of how cruichan works.

Its typically used to top up when demand is high, eg add break in coronation street where everyone puts kettle on etc.

Pumpedcstorage is different from hydro dam, where generation is on as long as water levels are high.

Which in Scotland just now they are with as i witnessed on a walk on friday with dams full to the brim.

Different in summer when levels are lower, but in winter we have lots and lots and lots of water in form of rain and snow in Scotland, especially the highlands


 So no proof then and ignoring links i gave previously  on why energy should be cheaper in Scotland.

I did not read essex hebridean as they are one of the people on my blocked list. So will never ever see what they say.

EssexHebridean

Section62 said:

SnakePlissken said:

And do you have evidence of maintenance cost of network in Scotland v east anglia?

As EssexHebridean suggests, this ought to be self evident to anyone with a rough idea of the geography of the two areas.

A lot of people in the more populated areas of Scotland don't have any real grasp of the geography of the Highlands and (particularly) Islands, in fairness. It's the reason why many of those in the Isles will happily express that they feel as remote from Holyrood as they do from Westminster.  Ultimately, if you live in Edinburgh or Glasgow, your lights are far less likely to go out when it's windy! (And "windy" in itself will mean something entirely different, too!) 

Section62

SnakePlissken said:

Im fully aware of how cruichan works.

Its typically used to top up when demand is high, eg add break in coronation street where everyone puts kettle on etc.

That's one of the functions, but simply confirms the point I made which you seemingly don't believe - hydro is highly controllable and can be taken in and out of the generation mix at short notice.

The reason for E7 existing - the historic surplus from thermal generation at night - doesn't apply where you have reliable generation which can be turned on and off like a tap.  Scotland's bonus of having lots of hydro and wind means the region isn't in the same position as other regions when it comes to having surplus night generation and so being able to offer very cheap E7 units to consumers.

SnakePlissken said:

Pumpedcstorage is different from hydro dam, where generation is on as long as water levels are high.

Which in Scotland just now they are with as i witnessed on a walk on friday with dams full to the brim.

I gave reasons in my previous post why conventional hydro wouldn't necessarily be run continually, even when water levels are high.

High water levels are in fact one reason why hydro generation may need to be reduced - in order not to cause flooding downstream.  E.g. The principal purpose of Pitlochry Dam and power station is to regulate the flow in the river Tummel downstream: Loch Faskally exists primarily to act as a buffer so the discharges from the upper power stations don't cause dangerous and damaging surges in the river downstream. So, for example, Clunie power station has to be operated in a way which doesn't excessively increase the water level in Loch Faskally at times where the discharge at Pitlochry into the Tummel have to be regulated down, even if Loch Tummel is 'full to the brim' and could (in theory) provide Clunie PS with limitless water.

The owners of dams and reservoirs in the UK have extensive legal duties and responsibilities to manage the water their dams are impounding.  It is a lot more complicated than simply running your hydro power station 24/7 and not caring about the impact you are having elsewhere.

SnakePlissken said:

Different in summer when levels are lower, but in winter we have lots and lots and lots of water in form of rain and snow in Scotland, especially the highlands

E7 is a tariff which is available all year round.  It isn't a winter tariff.  This is one of the reasons why having abundant hydro resources doesn't automatically mean Scotland should have the cheapest E7 tariff.

SnakePlissken said:

So no proof then and ignoring links i gave previously  on why energy should be cheaper in Scotland.

I did not read essex hebridean as they are one of the people on my blocked list. So will never ever see what they say.

The 'proof' is there if you wish to read and research it yourself.

ariarnia

SnakePlissken said:

And do you have evidence of maintenance cost of network in Scotland v east anglia?

if you have a look at the ofgem info for the standing charge and think about what makes up the 'network non-solr' costs then that should do the trick. 

unless your not really interested and just looking for an argument of course. 

Scot_39

SnakePlissken said:

Mstty said:

SnakePlissken said:

Section62 said:

SnakePlissken said:

So why does both North and South of Scotland have amongst the highest E7 tarrif?

Much of Scotland's hydro can be turned off in periods of low demand, and returned to generation relatively quickly if needed.  Hence using that capacity just to generate cheap electricity doesn't make sense. The currently operational PS capacity can also take surplus wind generation and put it to good use.

Scotland also has an extensive and expensive to maintain distribution system (compared to say East Anglia) and those costs will negatively weight the consumer prices in Scotland compared to other regions.

Do you have links to prove this?

Or is it just your own, opinion on the subject ?

And is the previous claim..

Generally, the more that can be generated locally the lower the cost.     

Then false?

And do you have evidence of maintenance cost of network in Scotland v east anglia?

I would suggest it was common sense with a spread out population in remote areas with extreme weather compared to the average in the UK.

So no proof just a guess or opinion?

Hydro is the cheapest electricity per KW, cheaper than wind
The global weighted average levelized cost of electricity from new projects commissioned in 2017 was US$0.05/kWh from hydropower, compared with US$0.06 for onshore wind, $0.07 for bioenergy and geothermal projects and $0.10 for utility-scale solar photovoltaic. Hydro’s LCOE varies regionally, with 2016-2017 values being $0.04/kWh in Asia, $0.05 in South America, $0.06 in North America, $0.07 in Africa, Eurasia and the Middle East, $0.10 in Central America and the Caribbean and $0.12 in Europe.

https://www.hydroreview.com/business-finance/hydropower-remains-the-lowest-cost-source-of-electricity-globally/#gref

Scotland’s expensive energy bills mainly come down to the UK’s outdated energy market – a system that is still determined by fossil fuels and not cheap renewables.
Professor Michael Grubb, from UCL Bartlett School of Environment, Energy & Resources, claims that “the design of electricity systems has failed to catch up with the revolution in renewable energy”.
Grubb explains that the UK electricity market is seeing huge price rises because it relies on the most expensive generator setting the price, which is usually fossil fuels. This is because some gas plants need to run almost constantly, which they won’t do unless the electricity price is high enough to cover their operating cost.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/scotland-electricity#:~:text=Scotland's expensive energy bills mainly,fuels and not cheap renewables.

Except that the CfD pricing mechanism - leading currently to a rebate - has changed the uk grid bid system, just not a step change. 
Which is why there is already is a £54 reduction in Ofgem cap for it. At 2900 tdcv - 1.9p/kWh.

Despite a very low cf peak demand operational capacity under CfD.  But by 2027 - it will be closer to half in theory - as 20GW added - 16.8GW unreliable renewables from last 2 auctions, and 3.2 GW nuclear.

And as earlier posts, old renewables were not cheap cf old gas. Even as recently as 2015, more with Sizewell offset, and upto the same without - at 12p CfD price - for Hinkley nuclear in 2012.

So you could make a change to the bid system, to use if you like mixed costs for all, but gas would still get 30p, old renewables and nuclear would still arguably get 30p - because that's the basis of the contracts and licenses signed by govt - and new would get the CfD.

The previous major contract revision - in 2002 under NLab, left them essentially uncapped, as all previous - due to grid bid mechanism, and suppliers would I expect argue that's embedded implicitly if not explicitly in contracts (*)

Result no difference.

(*) The govt tried to renegotiate for months last autumn with major suplliers of old wind, all the suppliers refused.  Its against uk law, eu law and most international law to impose changes unilaterily to a commercial contract, so govt wisely didn't. (Johnson et als willingness to renage on their own design Brexit deal, was already tarnishing uk reputation as a reliable partner) . There have been reported cases being prepared / pending in EU nations etc for them doing so.
So in end imposed a windfall tax instead - 45% tax on profits on anything sold above £75/MWh iirc.

And until there is sufficient nuclear (and we are currently losing capacity over next 5-10+ years) or storage - TWh not 10s GWh - or a 10-20x increase in installed wind - to cope for periods lasting not hours , but days when it produces sub 5% or weeks sub 10% of installed capacity - as it has done repeatedly - including periods of peak demand in winter, (and around only c20% average all last summer) -  gas - will remain firmly in the mix.

The 16.8GW sold in last 2 auctions - at 5% - would generate sub 1GW. And overnight in winter arguably even less as c2GW of that is solar.  So from an energy security perspective, at current demand (ignoring bev, ashp etc etc ) - creates the headroom to think about maybe closing 1-2 typical gas plants.

But in reality we are likely to be building more gas.  Like the expected announcement for the first uk 100% carbon capture linked storage location.

As demand for power for EV charging and gas central heating with heat pumps etc is about to balloon.

And the costs of carbon capture / greening that gas, mean the prices for electricity from it - are not going to drop back to old normal, even if gas itself does.