And this is another reasons prices per kWh are what they are

Chrysalis

Mstty said:

https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/05/31/uk-power-dumping-raises-concerns-over-energy-management/

Source above

National Grid ESO has reportedly paid up to £550/MWh to dump excess power into neighbouring countries

“Yesterday (Monday 29th May), National Grid ESO spent £9.4 million on balancing the system by trading and using the balancing mechanism.”

We need some serious battery storage investment.

Occasionally Octopus pays people to use electric.

powerful_Rogue

TheElectricCow said:

I’m sure running a few DFS events would help out to some extent, and offloading to people/businesses here would must be cheaper than shipping the energy off to Europe.

Even when the end goal was to reduce peak demand we’ve seen plenty of people are prepared to significantly ramp up consumption during the IDA where there is a financial incentive to do so, it would only be a matter of changing the timings, payout formula, and dropping the actual period where an energy “reduction” is needed.

I came to say exactly this. Instead of 'Saving Sessions' have 'Using Sessions' Drop the price to 1p per kWh for an hour and watch that surplus drop down in no time! (Smart meters only though )

doodling

Hi,

Chrysalis said:

Mstty said:

https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/05/31/uk-power-dumping-raises-concerns-over-energy-management/

Source above

National Grid ESO has reportedly paid up to £550/MWh to dump excess power into neighbouring countries

“Yesterday (Monday 29th May), National Grid ESO spent £9.4 million on balancing the system by trading and using the balancing mechanism.”

We need some serious battery storage investment.

Occasionally Octopus pays people to use electric.

How many £Tn do you have?

Batteries are only a tiny part of the solution because they have a tiny capacity at huge resource cost.

I'm not joking about the price, if you wanted to back up the UK grid for the two weeks that the wind might not blow (ignoring any additional load imposed by heat pumps or electric cars) then you need around 12TWh of storage.  Google suggests that total worldwide lithium ion battery production in 2018 was 290GWh, let us be generous and say that it is now 2TWh a year - do you think we can afford to buy the entire output of the lithium ion battery industry worldwide for the next 6 years?

Electricity storage is not a solved problem.  Renewables rely on electricity storage, or they rely on something replacing them when they are not available.  In the latter case, if you have to build a replacement then why have the renewable in the first place?

doodling

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

CSI_Yorkshire

doodling said:

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

They both can.

Strummer22

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

They both can.

I’m all for renewables. However, wind and solar obviously cannot run 24/7/365. They need maintenance (although for solar this is unlikely to affect generation much, if at all). They can’t ramp up to meet demand, and can only ramp down if the operators are paid to do so, otherwise they miss out on revenue.

As for why to build renewables in the first place if you need alternatives to fill the gap when they’re not generating, that should be obvious. Low cost, low carbon energy some of the time is better than low cost, low carbon energy none of the time. 

CSI_Yorkshire

Strummer22 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

They both can.

I’m all for renewables. However, wind and solar obviously cannot run 24/7/365. They need maintenance (although for solar this is unlikely to affect generation much, if at all). They can’t ramp up to meet demand, and can only ramp down if the operators are paid to do so, otherwise they miss out on revenue.

As for why to build renewables in the first place if you need alternatives to fill the gap when they’re not generating, that should be obvious. Low cost, low carbon energy some of the time is better than low cost, low carbon energy none of the time. 

In the same way as any individual power station can't run 24/7/365.

As a fleet, however, they can.

Same for ramp down.  Conventional power stations only do it if they are either required to do so by the codes, or if they are paid to do it.  Why do you think solar and wind can't do this?

You can have exactly the same for ramp up.  Write it in the grid code that you must be able to increase by X% or you can't have a connection.  Works for reactive power for voltage control, so why do you think it is impossible?  Make it a paid service, because that's what it already is for conventional generation - a fixed fee for keeping some in reserve plus some bonus money if the service is used.  Happens everywhere, but still people insist that renewables can't do it?

doodling

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

They both can.

That statement is untrue.

Solar is not known for its night time performance.

Wind turbines do not work well when it is not windy.  It is possible for it to be not windy across retty much all of northern Europe for periods of a couple of weeks.

Neither cam ramp up and down to meet demand is any meaningful way ss currently constructed and funded.  I agree that you could make both dispatchable downwards with some tweaks but the distributed nature of solar in particular makes that challenging.

CSI_Yorkshire

doodling said:

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

They both can.

That statement is untrue.

Solar is not known for its night time performance.

The first 24 hour continuous operation of a commercial solar power plant was in 2016.  I think the largest installation now is just over 500MW.  And bizarrely, even photovoltaics have just been discovered to be able to work (but at a miniscule output) in the night.

doodling said:

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

They both can.

Wind turbines do not work well when it is not windy.  It is possible for it to be not windy across retty much all of northern Europe for periods of a couple of weeks.

But it's extremely unusual for it to be not windy and not sunny across "all of Northern Europe" for any long period.  The two conditions tend to occur in opposition.

doodling said:

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

They both can.

Neither cam ramp up and down to meet demand is any meaningful way ss currently constructed and funded.  I agree that you could make both dispatchable downwards with some tweaks but the distributed nature of solar in particular makes that challenging.

They couldn't do voltage control, until we decided they should, changed the code, and then suddenly they could.

They didn't do fault-ride through, until we decided they should, changed the code, and then suddenly they could.

They didn't provide inertia, until we decided they should, changed the code, and then suddenly they could.

Noticing a pattern here?

doodling

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Strummer22 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

Hi,

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Strummer22 said:

Scot_39 said:

The problem is the policy isn't being driven by wholesale let alone consumer pricing - it's been driven by the environment.

And that is not the same thing.

I don't know the answers - but do wonder if  nuclear  not a better direct 1 for 1 solution to replace gas generation - than piling on more and more unreliable (unpredictable) renewables.

Would you prefer to externalise the cost (i.e. to hell with the environment, give me cheap energy)?

Nuclear is part of the solution. It provides baseload power, but cannot respond to demand in the same way as gas. That's why a mix of generation sources is best. You are correct though that non-intermittent capacity must exceed maximum possible demand. I'm certainly glad I'm not in charge of trying to solve the problem! 

No , but I would rather these things were looked at in overall true cost - not just the greenwashed / rose tinted glasses view.

The EU has now deemed nuclear a green source - due to it's zero emmissions at time of generation.

Obviously the anti-nuclear lobby will always take a different view.

The same voices screaming Hinkley too expensive at 9.8p (with Sizewell option, 12p without) - were remarkably quiet when FoS wind cost upto 12p in 2015 auction.

Existing operational CfD contracts - all renewables - all be it at more expensive rates than 2022 auctions - are now once again adding to average bills (was -£54 last quarter now +£10).

And despite the massive financial and environmental costs to build and those to connect and stabilize the grid - which we pay via our SC etc - we still need almost the same amount of conventional.

To cover the frequent - summer and winter - low output days / weeks / months even.

And nuclear runs 24/7/365 with no interruptions for maintenance or refuelling and ramps up and down to match demand?

Yes.  You have to build more nuclear power stations than you need of course so some can be offline for maintenance / refuelling / being broken but overall nuclear can do all of that.

What is perhaps.more striking is that wind and solar can do none of those things.

They both can.

I’m all for renewables. However, wind and solar obviously cannot run 24/7/365. They need maintenance (although for solar this is unlikely to affect generation much, if at all). They can’t ramp up to meet demand, and can only ramp down if the operators are paid to do so, otherwise they miss out on revenue.

As for why to build renewables in the first place if you need alternatives to fill the gap when they’re not generating, that should be obvious. Low cost, low carbon energy some of the time is better than low cost, low carbon energy none of the time. 

In the same way as any individual power station can't run 24/7/365.

As a fleet, however, they can.

Same for ramp down.  Conventional power stations only do it if they are either required to do so by the codes, or if they are paid to do it.  Why do you think solar and wind can't do this?

You can have exactly the same for ramp up.  Write it in the grid code that you must be able to increase by X% or you can't have a connection.  Works for reactive power for voltage control, so why do you think it is impossible?  Make it a paid service, because that's what it already is for conventional generation - a fixed fee for keeping some in reserve plus some bonus money if the service is used.  Happens everywhere, but still people insist that renewables can't do it?

I think what you are saying is that if we insisted that renewable generators also built gas power stations so that they could generate when it wasn't windy then they could be fully dispatchable.

That is true but they also wouldn't fit most peoples definition of renewable.

You are making my point for me - feel free to continue...