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

CSI_Yorkshire

doodling said:

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...

Deliberate misinterpretation of my words is not useful.

We wrote rules that say "if you are generating, you must be able to produce or consume a certain amount of reactive power to help control voltage.  if you can't, you aren't allowed to connect".

What's stopping us writing a rule that says "you must restrict your output so that you can turn up 10% if instructed.  if you don't, you cannot connect to the system"?  Spilling wind is dead easy, doesn't even need technical changes to the turbines.

doodling

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

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...

Deliberate misinterpretation of my words is not useful.

We wrote rules that say "if you are generating, you must be able to produce or consume a certain amount of reactive power to help control voltage.  if you can't, you aren't allowed to connect".

What's stopping us writing a rule that says "you must restrict your output so that you can turn up 10% if instructed.  if you don't, you cannot connect to the system"?  Spilling wind is dead easy, doesn't even need technical changes to the turbines.

Because the output of your wind turbines is constrained by the availability of wind.  You cannot generate more electricity if there is no wind with which to do so.

Or to put it another way if there is a blocking high over northern Europe and thus no wind (yes, it dies happen for periods of over a week at a time) and I as a grid operator ask you as a wind generator to deliver that 2GW you are contracted to deliver come what may, where are you going to get it from?

CSI_Yorkshire

doodling said:

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

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...

Deliberate misinterpretation of my words is not useful.

We wrote rules that say "if you are generating, you must be able to produce or consume a certain amount of reactive power to help control voltage.  if you can't, you aren't allowed to connect".

What's stopping us writing a rule that says "you must restrict your output so that you can turn up 10% if instructed.  if you don't, you cannot connect to the system"?  Spilling wind is dead easy, doesn't even need technical changes to the turbines.

Because the output of your wind turbines is constrained by the availability of wind.  You cannot generate more electricity if there is no wind with which to do so.

Or to put it another way if there is a blocking high over northern Europe and thus no wind (yes, it dies happen for periods of over a week at a time) and I as a grid operator ask you as a wind generator to deliver that 2GW you are contracted to deliver come what may, where are you going to get it from?

Southern Europe, Eastern Europe or solar.  Realistically, you'd probably want some storage too because otherwise it would get expensive, but you could do it without.

I don't think anyone has said "you must only use wind turbines".

doodling

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

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.

500MW continuous, in the UK, in Winter - tell me more?

Of course solar panels els react to moon light and starlight- that isn't a discovery, it is fairly basic physics.

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.

Unfortunately it happens several times each Winter for a week or two at a time..  it is a well documented phenomenon. 

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?

Voltage control, fault ride through and inertia require very little energy storage (inertia requires a bit more and a wind generator would probably need to use batteries to deliver it) and I'm surprised that they weren't standard features if the turbines were connected via a modern voltage source converter.

Downwards dispatchabiliy is easy and I expect that will become a feature in due course.  I do however note that such a feature will mean that wind will require even more subsidy than it does now - the economics are based on it running at the maximum the wind permits.

Upwards dispatchability (other than reversing a previous downwards dispatch) just isn't possible because the generators have no control over their energy source.

You can't argue that the fact that someone didn't do the easy things and they now can means that they can also do the impossible thing.

CSI_Yorkshire

Strawman arguements and moving the goalposts..

You have your opinion, and it's clear that no comment or evidence will change that.

I'll leave it here.

doodling

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

Hi,

CSI_Yorkshire said:

doodling said:

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...

Deliberate misinterpretation of my words is not useful.

We wrote rules that say "if you are generating, you must be able to produce or consume a certain amount of reactive power to help control voltage.  if you can't, you aren't allowed to connect".

What's stopping us writing a rule that says "you must restrict your output so that you can turn up 10% if instructed.  if you don't, you cannot connect to the system"?  Spilling wind is dead easy, doesn't even need technical changes to the turbines.

Because the output of your wind turbines is constrained by the availability of wind.  You cannot generate more electricity if there is no wind with which to do so.

Or to put it another way if there is a blocking high over northern Europe and thus no wind (yes, it dies happen for periods of over a week at a time) and I as a grid operator ask you as a wind generator to deliver that 2GW you are contracted to deliver come what may, where are you going to get it from?

Southern Europe, Eastern Europe or solar.  Realistically, you'd probably want some storage too because otherwise it would get expensive, but you could do it without.

I don't think anyone has said "you must only use wind turbines".

No, but if you're going to import it and it comes from burning coal in Germany then it is challenging to call it renewable.

We don't have the interconnector capacity to import our current wind capacity, let alone what people are expecting to build, of course more intervonnectors could be built but...

You also forget the political angle.  The time when all this matters is at 17:00 on a weekday evening in Janury..  At the same time the rest of northern Europe will be in a similar position. Solar will be more or less non-existent.  I don't think that southern Europe is going to build sufficient capacity to keep everyone supplied.  We will be competing for any available power with the likes of Germany.  This won't be like gas supplies last year where all we needed to do is outbid countries like Pakistan.  Do you want to tell the British electorate that the lights went off because we're poorer than Germany?

It is unwise for the UK to be a passive consumer of energy - it is a huge political and economic lever and we need to be in control of our own supply (at least on a day to day basis).  Interconnectors are great as a means to optimise but I wouldn't rely on them to make up for a lack of indiginous generation as we are at the moment.