Ofgem Prices from July

BarelySentientAI

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

1.37 GW / 30GW installed rated capacity as licensed = sub 5%

Todays say 1.37GW vs that winters 40GW demand - would actually only be 3.5%.

You do know that load factor is an actual, technical thing - and isn't a spot calculation based on a single period that happens to support your argument?

We'd get nowhere if we planned the system like that.

The system needs to cope with exactly those "spots" or maybe even more extreme. You can't just say "no wind power today but it doesn't matter because it averages out over the year".

On a macro planning level, that's exactly what you do.  And that's where the term "load factor" is used.

We also do cope with those "spots", because the grid didn't crash on either of those occasions.  And that's without this mythical 100% conventional parallel system that has been getting talked about.

Scot_39

Netexporter said:

And right now - CfD renewables are once again adding costs £20 - and these are going up to £37 in July - and someone has to pay for literally  £10s bn in grid upgrades to connect and distribute often remote new wind and solar locations or capacity upgrades to existing - to consumers.

Still miles cheaper than nuclear and available quickly, not a decade, or more late.

Once V2G for EVs is established, there will be a growing amount of distributed storage available. Similarly home batteries.

You might want to waste the limited warranty on your verybexpensive to replace ev battery by increasing the charge cycles - others certainly with older battery tech will not.

And unless an EV owner can tell me how many charge cycles as well as their vehicle mileage they have performed  - I won't be buying their vehicle second hand.

Qyburn

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

1.37 GW / 30GW installed rated capacity as licensed = sub 5%

Todays say 1.37GW vs that winters 40GW demand - would actually only be 3.5%.

You do know that load factor is an actual, technical thing - and isn't a spot calculation based on a single period that happens to support your argument?

We'd get nowhere if we planned the system like that.

The system needs to cope with exactly those "spots" or maybe even more extreme. You can't just say "no wind power today but it doesn't matter because it averages out over the year".

On a macro planning level, that's exactly what you do.  And that's where the term "load factor" is used.

We also do cope with those "spots", because the grid didn't crash on either of those occasions.  And that's without this mythical 100% conventional parallel system that has been getting talked about.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The fact that the grid stays in balance when wind drops from 30GW down to 1.3GW just shows that there is in fact spare capacity sitting waiting to be spun up.

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that "the macro planning level" is based purely on annual averages. It needs to cover peaks and troughs in both demand and generation. 

BarelySentientAI

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

1.37 GW / 30GW installed rated capacity as licensed = sub 5%

Todays say 1.37GW vs that winters 40GW demand - would actually only be 3.5%.

You do know that load factor is an actual, technical thing - and isn't a spot calculation based on a single period that happens to support your argument?

We'd get nowhere if we planned the system like that.

The system needs to cope with exactly those "spots" or maybe even more extreme. You can't just say "no wind power today but it doesn't matter because it averages out over the year".

On a macro planning level, that's exactly what you do.  And that's where the term "load factor" is used.

We also do cope with those "spots", because the grid didn't crash on either of those occasions.  And that's without this mythical 100% conventional parallel system that has been getting talked about.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The fact that the grid stays in balance when wind drops from 30GW down to 1.3GW just shows that there is in fact spare capacity sitting waiting to be spun up.

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that "the macro planning level" is based purely on annual averages. It needs to cover peaks and troughs in both demand and generation. 

Well, you can believe what you like - it used to be my job.  Operational planning (mid-term) and system balancing (short-term & real time) use different methods, but system planning (long-term) does not.

The point is that there is, yet again, the perspective being suggested that we need 100% conventional generation as a backup just because sometimes it isn't very windy.  The "2 parallel systems" from a few posts ago.  That argument has been getting pushed since the 1990s and is even less true now than it was then.

[Deleted User]

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

1.37 GW / 30GW installed rated capacity as licensed = sub 5%

Todays say 1.37GW vs that winters 40GW demand - would actually only be 3.5%.

You do know that load factor is an actual, technical thing - and isn't a spot calculation based on a single period that happens to support your argument?

We'd get nowhere if we planned the system like that.

The system needs to cope with exactly those "spots" or maybe even more extreme. You can't just say "no wind power today but it doesn't matter because it averages out over the year".

On a macro planning level, that's exactly what you do.  And that's where the term "load factor" is used.

We also do cope with those "spots", because the grid didn't crash on either of those occasions.  And that's without this mythical 100% conventional parallel system that has been getting talked about.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The fact that the grid stays in balance when wind drops from 30GW down to 1.3GW just shows that there is in fact spare capacity sitting waiting to be spun up.

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that "the macro planning level" is based purely on annual averages. It needs to cover peaks and troughs in both demand and generation. 

Well, you can believe what you like - it used to be my job.  Operational planning (mid-term) and system balancing (short-term & real time) use different methods, but system planning (long-term) does not.

The point is that there is, yet again, the perspective being suggested that we need 100% conventional generation as a backup just because sometimes it isn't very windy.  The "2 parallel systems" from a few posts ago.  That argument has been getting pushed since the 1990s and is even less true now than it was then.

Hi @BarelySentientAI - taking @Qyburn example above - suppose wind generation does drop dramatically - what does happen to balance the grid and keep the lights on?

Thanks, Mike

BarelySentientAI

[Deleted User] said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

1.37 GW / 30GW installed rated capacity as licensed = sub 5%

Todays say 1.37GW vs that winters 40GW demand - would actually only be 3.5%.

You do know that load factor is an actual, technical thing - and isn't a spot calculation based on a single period that happens to support your argument?

We'd get nowhere if we planned the system like that.

The system needs to cope with exactly those "spots" or maybe even more extreme. You can't just say "no wind power today but it doesn't matter because it averages out over the year".

On a macro planning level, that's exactly what you do.  And that's where the term "load factor" is used.

We also do cope with those "spots", because the grid didn't crash on either of those occasions.  And that's without this mythical 100% conventional parallel system that has been getting talked about.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The fact that the grid stays in balance when wind drops from 30GW down to 1.3GW just shows that there is in fact spare capacity sitting waiting to be spun up.

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that "the macro planning level" is based purely on annual averages. It needs to cover peaks and troughs in both demand and generation. 

Well, you can believe what you like - it used to be my job.  Operational planning (mid-term) and system balancing (short-term & real time) use different methods, but system planning (long-term) does not.

The point is that there is, yet again, the perspective being suggested that we need 100% conventional generation as a backup just because sometimes it isn't very windy.  The "2 parallel systems" from a few posts ago.  That argument has been getting pushed since the 1990s and is even less true now than it was then.

Hi @BarelySentientAI - taking @Qyburn example above - suppose wind generation does drop dramatically - what does happen to balance the grid and keep the lights on?

Thanks, Mike

Depends how far and how fast, plus what else happens to be on the grid at the same time.  Wind generation suddenly and unexpectedly dropping across the entire country just doesn't really happen - you can see what the ESO planned for wind to do and what it actually does, and they're very close.  About as close as the prediction of demand and the actual demand, which we're pretty good at (although for some reason we got it really wrong this morning).

Generators of all types are required to have the ability to turn up and down to keep balance, part of the capacity of the interconnectors can be used to fill in gaps, pumped storage takes some of the faster peaks, and there are some generators waiting (both cold and hot) to come in when there are sudden problems like a broken station - again, any mix of generation technology can be able to do this, doesn't need to be 'conventional'.  Many large industrial consumers have interruptible or 'turn-down-able' contracts, and in the extreme cases there's the load shedding that got talked about a bit in the past winters, or voltage control at DSO level can do a bit too.

That's in the scheduling and balancing regime though rather than system planning.  Planning is more concerned with things like the capacity mechanism (effectively working out how many generators need to exist).

We did have some issues in the 90s and early 00s because the renewable generators weren't expected to do any of these things (the ancillary services) and just did whatever they wanted.  After the grid nearly crashed in 2008 (and the European one did at a similar time), the rules were tightened up quite a lot.

Scot_39

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

1.37 GW / 30GW installed rated capacity as licensed = sub 5%

Todays say 1.37GW vs that winters 40GW demand - would actually only be 3.5%.

You do know that load factor is an actual, technical thing - and isn't a spot calculation based on a single period that happens to support your argument?

We'd get nowhere if we planned the system like that.

The system needs to cope with exactly those "spots" or maybe even more extreme. You can't just say "no wind power today but it doesn't matter because it averages out over the year".

On a macro planning level, that's exactly what you do.  And that's where the term "load factor" is used.

We also do cope with those "spots", because the grid didn't crash on either of those occasions.  And that's without this mythical 100% conventional parallel system that has been getting talked about.

Macro planning on averages only works if do not cut reserves to the bone based on it.

And over recent years we have cut  ( and more so in future - if we continue ) more reliable more predictable generation capacity - coal gas nuclear  - in favour of installing at an accelerated rate more variable wind solar etc - the problem gets worse.


And in recent past uk grid balance has been challenging.  Like when had to pay over £9700 / MWh for a limitted quantity in July 2022 to keep parts of London and SE grid operating - over 50x normal price.

Balancing charges that reached upto iirc around £4bn pounds in 22, still nearly £3bn last year as prices dropped  - the latter averaging about £80 per business / domestic connection.

Curtailment charges running into £100s millions because simply could not transmit the power from renewables available.

Licenses sold upto 2022 auction for connection by 2027 - grid upgrades e.g. egl2 - to deliver the power to market not authorised by Ofgem until early 24, not yet passed final planning permissions and not on paper coming onstream to 2029 or likely far later a classic example of current disjointed approach.

If I wanted to - could I find current macro load factors and outputs - renewables and conventional vs demand level - and the levels of reserves we are going to keep to cope with the lows to keep the lights on. Or is that proprietary / confidential ?

For instance 

At end of 23 iirc had c15GW offshore and 15GW on shore wind.

The govt target was iirc c50GW offshore by 2030.  Others ?  Let's say conservatively 70GW total.

So when as recently 30GW drops from say yearly average 9.4GW to 1.3 GW an 8GW drop only have to find that 8GW.

What happens when 70GW drops from if like for like average 22 GW to low 3.5GW.  A 18.5GW drop.  10.5 GW extra

Are we still going to have enough reserves to cope ?

Or will we have cut even more conventional core load to save money - because the averages load factors said we could cope. - and not have that extra 10GW available.


And how much extra are we then going to be paying in balancing charges etc for it - for potentially that 10GW more variability - to source from two generation sources to meet a large fraction of demand - on different days ?

BarelySentientAI

Scot_39 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

1.37 GW / 30GW installed rated capacity as licensed = sub 5%

Todays say 1.37GW vs that winters 40GW demand - would actually only be 3.5%.

You do know that load factor is an actual, technical thing - and isn't a spot calculation based on a single period that happens to support your argument?

We'd get nowhere if we planned the system like that.

The system needs to cope with exactly those "spots" or maybe even more extreme. You can't just say "no wind power today but it doesn't matter because it averages out over the year".

On a macro planning level, that's exactly what you do.  And that's where the term "load factor" is used.

We also do cope with those "spots", because the grid didn't crash on either of those occasions.  And that's without this mythical 100% conventional parallel system that has been getting talked about.

If I wanted to - could I find current macro load factors and outputs - renewables and conventional vs demand level - and the levels of reserves we are going to keep to cope with the lows to keep the lights on. Or is that proprietary / confidential ?

They certainly exist somewhere - installed capacity, de-rated capacity (the 'secure' capacity allowed to be used in planning), total generation, and the planning margins used by the ESO to make sure we always have 'enough'.

I'll try and dig a link - I used to keep local copies but I think they're online somewhere.

The derating factors are something like 45% for wind, 35% for small hydro and 15% for solar PV I think.  With the equivalent for the 'old fashioned' stuff being in the 85%-95% range.  (so 2GW installed wind is as good as 1GW gas in those calculations) 

BarelySentientAI

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Qyburn said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Scot_39 said:

1.37 GW / 30GW installed rated capacity as licensed = sub 5%

Todays say 1.37GW vs that winters 40GW demand - would actually only be 3.5%.

You do know that load factor is an actual, technical thing - and isn't a spot calculation based on a single period that happens to support your argument?

We'd get nowhere if we planned the system like that.

The system needs to cope with exactly those "spots" or maybe even more extreme. You can't just say "no wind power today but it doesn't matter because it averages out over the year".

On a macro planning level, that's exactly what you do.  And that's where the term "load factor" is used.

We also do cope with those "spots", because the grid didn't crash on either of those occasions.  And that's without this mythical 100% conventional parallel system that has been getting talked about.

If I wanted to - could I find current macro load factors and outputs - renewables and conventional vs demand level - and the levels of reserves we are going to keep to cope with the lows to keep the lights on. Or is that proprietary / confidential ?

They certainly exist somewhere - installed capacity, de-rated capacity (the 'secure' capacity allowed to be used in planning), total generation, and the planning margins used by the ESO to make sure we always have 'enough'.

I'll try and dig a link - I used to keep local copies but I think they're online somewhere.

The derating factors are something like 45% for wind, 35% for small hydro and 15% for solar PV I think.  With the equivalent for the 'old fashioned' stuff being in the 85%-95% range.  (so 2GW installed wind is as good as 1GW gas in those calculations) 

I think the best first source would be Chapter 5 of DUKES:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64c23a300c8b960013d1b05e/DUKES_2023_Chapter_5.pdf

Not sure if everything is there (particularly the operational margin requirement) but a lot of the source stuff is.