MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts
Comments
-
pumped storage isnt the only load demand system (daily peak demand reserve) - spinning reserve forms the bulk of whats available as does the NG Frequency service (companies that use huge amounts of electricity that are paid to shut down in times of need) , you then have pumped storage and finally the standing reserve - diesel generators available to come on at short notice - in fact the uk has 500mw of deisel and 150mw of gas turbines ready for just that need; the standing reserve is ordered to start within 20mins , the time the frequency service is deemed to shut down for.
the whole issue with renewables is one of peak load - they can provide a baseline power , but if its calm or dark you cant use them - nuclear is darn useful for that really, but apparantly some people dont like the idea of that
; but hydro - the seven barrier for example , would have ben ideal - shame friends of the earth knocked that one on the head..... 0 -
Blossom2528 wrote: »Mart, thanks. kids only at project stage. Need to find the time they'll fit up a chimney but cant dial childline. worth thinking long term.
What is a peaker.
I'm sure you'll make a great parent, low carbon household, high carbon content childrens lungs!
Had to look up that face, no need for you to be embarrassed, I should be for throwing that in without thinking.
Peakers are the generating methods that kick in when baseload (24hr background demand) can't cope. Generally as energy demand gets higher and higher the national grid has to deploy more and more systems to cope, and this gets more expensive, both to use, and to have sitting there in case. This is our main problem in UK with balancing generation, to demand, especially around 6pm in the evenings when demand is usually highest. Thats why Cardew and Graham (and the national grid) quite rightly raise such concerns.
When we're desperate we use fast spooling (quick to get up 'to speed') generation like hydro - Dinorwig, or use some French nuclear - the time difference between UK and mainland Europe helps a bit with this to spread demand. We also use cheap nightime nuclear (UK and French) to refill the hydro plants that have pumped storage. This is only 70% efficient, which shows how big the cost difference between off peak and peak are.
Lots of solutions to peak, all very expensive.
Ranging from tiny - electric cars with smart chargers and smart meters, that supply the house when needed, then charge when cheap (night).
Through to massive, such as linking Britain to Norway via interconnectors (the type we have with France and Ireland) to use their almost unbelievably massive amounts of hydro. Taking this one a step further could involve Norway expanding pumped storage hydro (rather than rainfall hydro), when we overproduce (or other parts of Europe) we pump water up, when we peak, we ask for some back.
You can never think too long-term.
Cardew, Ed or Roger, how efficient are interconnectors? Iv'e heard 3% loss over 1,000km but that sounds ludicrously low, I expected 5 times that. The UK's crackly cables are presumably less efficient? Way out of my depth here, any info would be appreciated. Cheers.
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Higrahamc2003 wrote: »Solar doesn't affect grid upgrades at all. Other in-house microgeneration might, but solar definitely doesn't.
The grid is designed to cope with shifting electrons around at the period of maximum demand.
Solar generates nothing at the period of maximum demand.
Therefore solar doesn't alter the grid design one iota.
Transmission during the day may be (a tiny bit) less, but that really is irrelevant - the transmission capacity requirements (this is the several billions infrastructure spend) won't change due to solar.
If local solar generation did generate at max demand, then it could theroectically reduce transmission capacity.
For similar reasons, total generation has to match max demand. Therefore anything which generates nothing at that period, like solar, must be duplicated by generation which does.
(please could I ask Z if I am explaining this well - I often get the feeling my explanation of this grid/solar attribute isn't very understandable and leaves people confused over what is a simple unassailable concept. A criticism of myself, not others).
If we as a society spend £100bn on solar as some would like, then we would have to spend another £100bn on capacity which will generate on a winter's evening, and if you spend £100bn on that reliable generation, then the requirement for the initial £100bn of solar dissappears under any rational analysis. We would simply have a choice of spending £100bn or £200bn to meet our electricity requirements under that scenario.
In general terms I agree. However, the concept changes if we follow Cardew's train of thought and build massive solar farms in the S/W instead of distributing the same capacity over the country as a whole, this being entirely due to the current grid capacity serving the S/W being designed to serve it's low population density. Throw in a couple of GWp or so of pv generation in the area and you will be shifting more electrons around at the period of maximum generation than you were previously doing at a period of maximum demand and would therefore need serious grid upgrades between the S/W and the main centres of population and consumption .
£100bn ?, well that's about 50GWp of distributed pv installed on roofs, at today's lower prices, which is probably capable of generating ~40TWh.y of energy, mainly concentrated around midday in the summer months, so the issue isn't really delivery, or backup, it's storage .... exactly the same issue as windpower and any other unschedulable or semi-schedulable resource.
The way that I see it is that everyone's looking at the energy provision solution the wrong way around, infrastructure is the key to all major problems, without the infrastructure of networks and the internet we couldn't be having this discussion and without roads and rails our cars and trains would be pretty useless, therefore we really should be considering the main infrastructure issues of energy transport and storage, taking this 'system' approach as opposed to concentrating on disperate technologies would help avoid the issue of duplication of generating capacity.
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »Cardew, Ed or Roger, how efficient are interconnectors? Iv'e heard 3% loss over 1,000km but that sounds ludicrously low, I expected 5 times that. The UK's crackly cables are presumably less efficient? Way out of my depth here, any info would be appreciated. Cheers.
Mart.
I'm not sure on that, I'm no electrical engineer. HVDC is the most efficient transmission method over long distances, Brazil has recently installed one of about 2500km length.
The other thing about hydro is that usually it can be 'saved up' when demand is low and used when demand is high, or alternatively saved when an alternative intermittent source is available and used when it is not.
Nuclear is good at supplying base demand, but not much good for peak as it cannot be started and stopped, unless as in the French import case it comes from somewhere with a slightly different peak. This does though show the benefit of having a larger grid, as different time zones smooth out the peaks to some extent.Solar install June 2022, Bath
4.8 kW array, Growatt SPH5000 inverter, 2x Growatt ML33RTA batteries.
SSW roof. ~22° pitch, BISF house. 12 x 400W Hyundai panels0 -
Hi... Nuclear is good at supplying base demand, but not much good for peak as it cannot be started and stopped, unless as in the French import case it comes from somewhere with a slightly different peak. This does though show the benefit of having a larger grid, as different time zones smooth out the peaks to some extent.
This is an extremely important point that needs to be considered within the push to move the UK into line with CET ... the timezone difference currently creates a differential between French and UK periods of peak demand, no difference, no French excess to pass through the interconnector resulting in a likely requirement for additional generating capacity in the UK .... what a great 'green' idea ....
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0 -
One additional point about distributed generation, and PV farms.
The top to bottom difference in generating potential from British installs is approx 20% (Plymouth v's Aberdeen).
This is very similar to 1 years reduction in panel prices, or long distance system losses, or I suspect even land prices (annual costs) when choosing cheapest site, rather than optimal generation. Any 1 of these could be used to justify locating a farm almost anywhere in the UK as appropriate.
Found a little bit about losses from Wikipedia(!), overhead cable losses may be about 7%, don't know what the losses are each time the power reaches a 'junction point'. "HVDC is significantly lower"?
So maybe 3% per 1,000km is right. If so, then I'm shocked, and that can go down as today's lesson learnt for me. Cool.
Mart.
Edit: Ok so I'm only 6 to 12 months behind the curve, check out this story from Norway, not sure if it's the 2/7/11 or the 7/2/11.
http://www.norwaynews.com/en/~view.php?72Vaa54CQ84828z285Fnf844WL3889WC76IAn353Kbt8
M.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Hi
In general terms I agree. However, the concept changes if we follow Cardew's train of thought and build massive solar farms in the S/W instead of distributing the same capacity over the country as a whole, this being entirely due to the current grid capacity serving the S/W being designed to serve it's low population density. Throw in a couple of GWp or so of pv generation in the area and you will be shifting more electrons around at the period of maximum generation than you were previously doing at a period of maximum demand and would therefore need serious grid upgrades between the S/W and the main centres of population and consumption .
Z
I really cannot believe this discussion is taking place!
The sole argument against the obvious economy of scale of solar farms is to play the 'distribution card'.
We have a generating capacity of 3,650MW at a single location in North Yorkshire.
Probably the largest generating capacity(Nuclear and conventional) in UK is to be found in Cumbria - not near any centre of population that I am aware of!; ditto Hinkley point in Somerset(Bristol?) ditto Sizewell in Suffolk. Ditto Interconnector in Kent.
As said above, we have a stack of small bio-mass power stations(e.g Glanford 13MW) dotted around the country.
Yet to somehow justify putting sub-4kWp installations on often unsuitable roofs in far flung locations all over UK and paying them huge subsidies(even at 21p/kWh) the 'distribution card' has to be played.
The fact that a huge subsidy is paid for each kWh generated, but 25% to 50% of that generated output is not exported(it is used in the house) is conveniently ignored. That 'loss' in export is a different order of magnitude to transmission losses.
Well if the South West is a 'show stopper' then how about solar farms dotted all over the UK? Factory/Supermarket roofs, brownfield sites etc.
As the Brat once shouted 'you cannot be serious'!0 -
HiI really cannot believe this discussion is taking place!
The sole argument against the obvious economy of scale of solar farms is to play the 'distribution card'.
We have a generating capacity of 3,650MW at a single location in North Yorkshire.
Probably the largest generating capacity(Nuclear and conventional) in UK is to be found in Cumbria - not near any centre of population that I am aware of!; ditto Hinkley point in Somerset(Bristol?) ditto Sizewell in Suffolk. Ditto Interconnector in Kent.
As said above, we have a stack of small bio-mass power stations(e.g Glanford 13MW) dotted around the country.
Yet to somehow justify putting sub-4kWp installations on often unsuitable roofs in far flung locations all over UK and paying them huge subsidies(even at 21p/kWh) the 'distribution card' has to be played.
The fact that a huge subsidy is paid for each kWh generated, but 25% to 50% of that generated output is not exported(it is used in the house) is conveniently ignored. That 'loss' in export is a different order of magnitude to transmission losses.
Well if the South West is a 'show stopper' then how about solar farms dotted all over the UK? Factory/Supermarket roofs, brownfield sites etc.
As the Brat once shouted 'you cannot be serious'!
The S/W isn't a showstopper, it's just that when the positive economics provided from generation gains from placing huge arrays in the highest insolation area are balanced against standard HV transmission and the extra required grid infrastructure the advantage of location deminishes, so why bother ... so just, as you say, place the solar capacity on a distributed basis all over the UK .... the last time we had the discussion I posted this ....Hi
And, as touched on before, the efficiency losses for long distance transmission of the electricity counter a good proportion of the higher insolation available. Regarding costs, not generating on a microgeneration basis requires upgrade and relocation of grid resource (new pylons/underground) which is likely to counter much of the capital cost efficiencies of having large arrays in the first place ......
If there's an argument for having large pv arrays then those arrays need to be close to centres of population. Yes, put arrays in the S/W to provide energy to the (small) population there and, as long as the existing grid could cope, they could even 'export' from Cornwall to the rest of the UK. However, let's not forget all of the nice countryside and warehouse size buildings around London and other large urban areas ..... just think, you'd not only get the efficiencies of large scale arrays, but you'd also get to spend less on upgrading the grid and gain the benefit of a local 'tourist' attraction on your doorstep ....
HTH
Z
.... so, in effect, if there's a general acceptance that the economics of (distributed pv) vs (S/W concentrated pv) stacks up, then we would at least agree on that element .....
As for subsidies, well they're limited in scope and scale and have been seriously reduced already and will be further reduced in the future and will likely dissappear completely when pv reaches a level of cost/generation parity .... this subsidy really needs to be put into context .... the overall committed cost of the pv subsidy sofar over a 25 year period will be less than 10% of the build cost subsidy of the London crossrail project alone, which really benefits very few outside London and will likely require ongoing public subsidy through taxation as long as it exists, let's not even start to consider HS2 and other such taxation funded subsidies ..... when pv reaches cost parity further subsidy ceases, it's just then a 25 year countdown on whatever the remaining payments are and then we'll all be looking at what all the fuss was about .... those of us who are still around, that is:D
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0 -
.
The way that I see it is that everyone's looking at the energy provision solution the wrong way around, infrastructure is the key to all major problems, without the infrastructure of networks and the internet we couldn't be having this discussion and without roads and rails our cars and trains would be pretty useless, therefore we really should be considering the main infrastructure issues of energy transport and storage, taking this 'system' approach as opposed to concentrating on disperate technologies would help avoid the issue of duplication of generating capacity.
HTH
Z
Regarding solar/duplicity, it doesn't matter at all what approach you take - it is inherent and an unassailable fact that all solar capacity will have to be duplicated. For every £2 we spend, we get £1 of benefit (that's a first cut approximation, at the second cut, or a more refined estimate, the situation is worse).
And to answer others, that is not 'knocking' solar, renewables or anything else, it is stating a fact, a property of solar generation connected to the grid. I personally would prefer it wasn't a fact - we could then have cheap electricity, but I'm afraid were stuck with it, that's the way the world is. If the wind blew all the time, wind power would be fantastic, we again would have cheap electricity, and if sh*t were grub, there'd be no starvation in the world.
Better to deal with how the world is rather than how we would like it.
Statements such as 'solar didn't cause the peak' are simply meaningless, and indicate a severe misunderstanding of the issues involved.0 -
actually wind power is good - 2010 the uk wind farms generated 11TWh between them (10000 times more than solar) and with even more wind farms on stream - the gap will widen - once the figures are out for 2011 , i can see wind surpassing biomass as the leading renewable (although has a way to go to catch up with nuclear yet alone gas or coal)
edit:
currently the UK has just over 3500 wind turbines on and off shore with a potential 6GW ouput , a further 3.5GW under contruction (including expanison of Thanet) and 5.8GW have planning consent, and 9.0GW are awaiting approval - and we are the world leader in off shore turbines....
http://www.bwea.com/statistics/
estimates show that by 2020 the uk would need (to meet its obligation) 33GW of renewable capacity - which equates to around 7000 turbines;
to compare - as of november there were 770mw of solar installed in the with potential for 330GWh; yes it has the highest money thrown at it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards