Europe gas market -how it started how its going

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

SMR's may be a much quicker and scalable alternative to the conventional nuclear stations

Can you spell out what the acronym SMR means?

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

Just now, Eric Gagen said:

Can you spell out what the acronym SMR means?

Small modular reactors

Like these that RR are working on

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/

Or these that Hyundai are working on

https://www.ajudaily.com/view/20211202130931224

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2009 figures, I will look for newer. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by ronwagn
add

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Thats a pretty old graph Ron

Try this which is live data (refreshed every 5 minutes)

https://grid.iamkate.com/

If you scroll down you can see the supply and demand over the last 12 months

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 minute ago, Rob Plant said:

Small modular reactors

Like these that RR are working on

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/

Or these that Hyundai are working on

https://www.ajudaily.com/view/20211202130931224

Unless the equipment for mass production of these is already in place with a trained workforce to operate them sitting waiting for orders, AND they are found environmentally acceptable by voters, I don't see this being of any use for the next 20 years.  Solving the EU energy crisis requires IMMEDIATE solutions - not things which will ease matters when the technology is matured after some testing.  Even the optimistic RR literature you link discusses what it could be like if everyone just did everything correctly.  

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

8 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Unless the equipment for mass production of these is already in place with a trained workforce to operate them sitting waiting for orders, AND they are found environmentally acceptable by voters, I don't see this being of any use for the next 20 years.  Solving the EU energy crisis requires IMMEDIATE solutions - not things which will ease matters when the technology is matured after some testing.  Even the optimistic RR literature you link discusses what it could be like if everyone just did everything correctly.  

Eric RR and Hyundai have serious amounts of resources to scale up production very very quickly. I dont see the difference between these and a normal fission reactor which are being built regarding environmental concerns?? Why wouldnt they be of any use before 20 years?? They are scalable and can operate pretty much anywhere.

Regarding IMMEDIATE solutions for the EU energy crisis, well I'm all ears. Please enlighten me with what that is???

Fact is there isnt one which is why there is a crisis in the first place. I think we need to explore all avenues of powergen including lengthening current power stations operating lifespan in order for all new tech to come on line and ease the burden going forward whilst we go through this energy transition phase.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

It already has the largest offshore wind farm in the world is in the N. Sea and that is just phase 1 of 4

https://hornseaprojects.co.uk/

There are literally dozens of others already built and some in the building phase.

Floating wind is next with many historical oil + gas companies building/supplying offshore wind such as SBM offshore, Balmoral, Hywind (Equinor) etc. etc.

I expect the Eastern seaboard of the US to be a big growth sector over the coming years too.

This sort of underlines the magnitude of the problem upcoming.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm The nameplate capacity of hornsea 1 and 2 is a combined 2.6 MW (I had some issues getting planned capacity for phases 3 and 4).  However accounting for a 35% capacity factor (typical for wind) this is a project that can expect to produce just under 1 MW of power on average (we will round up to 1 MW for accounting purposes) 

The EU area uses ~ 2800 Terrawatt hours of electricity a year, and this project can expect to produce ~ 6.6 Billion watts a year on average, and will thus meet 0.2% of demand.  In a world where 1/3rd (33%) of EU electricity demand comes from wind, the total amount of wind energy needs to roughly double from it's current level of 15-20%  penetration.  To meet this demand with projects the size of Hornsea means about 80 of them need to come on line.  however they need to be geographically distributed - otherwise a weather issue in the spot they are located knocks a large chunk of the grid out all by itself.  You also need something to store the power for 'bad generation' periods,  OR you need to build a lot more plants to have a large excess for those time periods.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Eric RR and Hyundai have serious amounts of resources to scale up production very very quickly. I dont see the difference between these and a normal fission reactor which are being built regarding environmental concerns?? Why wouldnt they be of any use before 20 years?? They are scalable and can operate pretty much anywhere.

Regarding IMMEDIATE solutions for the EU energy crisis, well I'm all ears. Please enlighten me with what that is???

Fact is there isnt one which is why there is a crisis in the first place. I think we need to explore all avenues of powergen including lengthening current power stations operating lifespan in order for all new tech to come on line and ease the burden going forward whilst we go through this energy transition phase.

What should be done, and what there is a political will to do often have no relationship to one another.  Normal fission reactors aren't being built in Europe so why would these ones get built?  Yes, I know there are a few nuclear projects ongoing, but their numbers and generation capacity is small compared to the numbers being retired.

I have zero doubt that RR and Hyundai can scale up production, but you are leaving aside a bunch of other issues that have to get resolved first:

• Somehow instill in people a desire for nuclear power - have you got a plan to accomplish this?
• Get politicians elected who reflect that desire - should be reasonably straightforward if you accomplish the first goal, but will take what - an addition 2-4 years depending on how often elections take place? 
• get the new plants licensed and sited (another year or two under ideal circumstances)
• THEN start scaling up production

What's your budget for changing the mindset of the average European?  what's the plan?  How long have you got in mind to accomplish this?  

 

Edit:  I just skimmed through the brochure from Rolls Royce on SMR's that is linked on the webpage. It's dated from 2017, and states that with an immediate committment they can have the first one in service by 2028.  Assuming nothing has been done (correct me if I am wrong) that means that a start NOW would put the first one in service by 2033.  That's perfectly within my timeframe of taking 20 years before there is any measurable impact as a result of the decision.  Do you think they will suddennly be spitting out one every couple of months  in 2033 given that they say it will take 5 years to construct each one?  Because that's the level of reactor production required to add the same level of electricity production as one of these large offshore wind farms you referenced.  

Edited January 10, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

6 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

This sort of underlines the magnitude of the problem upcoming.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm The nameplate capacity of hornsea 1 and 2 is a combined 2.6 MW (I had some issues getting planned capacity for phases 3 and 4).  However accounting for a 35% capacity factor (typical for wind) this is a project that can expect to produce just under 1 MW of power on average (we will round up to 1 MW for accounting purposes) 

The EU area uses ~ 2800 Terrawatt hours of electricity a year, and this project can expect to produce ~ 6.6 Billion watts a year on average, and will thus meet 0.2% of demand.  In a world where 1/3rd (33%) of EU electricity demand comes from wind, the total amount of wind energy needs to roughly double from it's current level of 15-20%  penetration.  To meet this demand with projects the size of Hornsea means about 80 of them need to come on line.  however they need to be geographically distributed - otherwise a weather issue in the spot they are located knocks a large chunk of the grid out all by itself.  You also need something to store the power for 'bad generation' periods,  OR you need to build a lot more plants to have a large excess for those time periods.  

I hope its not 2.6MW for Hornsea 1 + 2 lol 

Actually if you had fully read the link i gave it states 

Hornsea 1 is 1.2GW

Hornsea 2 is 1.3GW

Hornsea 3 is 2.4GW

Hornsea 4 hasnt been decided yest but its anticipated to be around 1.5GW

So 6.4GW in all which is double our coal generating capacity currently.

I agree that more needs to be done and it is, this is only 1 project as I mentioned there are dozens of them such as the London Array, Hywind, RWE projects in the Irish sea etc etc.

Frankly Europe is in the shit as it is tied to gas and now beholden to Putin IMO

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I hope its not 2.6MW for Hornsea 1 + 2 lol 

Actually if you had fully read the link i gave it states 

Hornsea 1 is 1.2GW

Hornsea 2 is 1.3GW

Hornsea 3 is 2.4GW

Hornsea 4 hasnt been decided yest but its anticipated to be around 1.5GW

So 6.4GW in all which is double our coal generating capacity currently.

I agree that more needs to be done and it is, this is only 1 project as I mentioned there are dozens of them such as the London Array, Hywind, RWE projects in the Irish sea etc etc.

Frankly Europe is in the shit as it is tied to gas and now beholden to Putin IMO

Those are maximum output nameplate capacities - yeah - I used m for million instead of G for giga - so confusing - I am used to a little bit different nomenclature.  

Catch is that for wind and solar, nameplate capacity and actual average generating capacities are grossly different. 

6.4 GW of namaplate coal plants can reasonably be expected to actually put out between 5 and 5.5 GW of electricity on demand.  

6.4 GW of nameplate wind turbines can only be expected to put out ~ 2.25GW of electricity on average (without control over exactly when)

As a result, if you want to replace that 6.4 GW of of coal plants with wind,  you will on average need to build ~ 13 GW of wind power.  Then you need to build some MORE capacity to account for time periods when the wind facilities are operating at a low capacity due to weather factors, but demand is average, or even higher than average.  Exacty what this other capacity will look like varies from place to place, but it has to be either dispatchable (hydro, natural gas or other fossil fuel) or dependent on factors which don't affect the local windpower resources (solar or renewables from a long distance away where the climate is different are good examples)    

 

Edit:  I am not 'knocking' projects like Hornsea - they are incredibly impressive, necessary, and major accomplishments.  We need more of them  and fast. 

For a good comparison of where things stand,  my own home state of Texas has 30 GW of installed windpower currently, and a total power consumption of ~ 475 GW, and gets 20% of it's power from wind.  the UK has 25 GW of total installed windpower and total power consumption of ~ 290 GW and gets ~ 24% of it's power from wind, so we are in a similar situation with respect to grid penetration in both places.  Otherwise they are very different, as Texas is in a situation where natural gas is available basically for the cost of transporting it from the fields to the plants, and in fact the majority is exported. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

15 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

What should be done, and what there is a political will to do often have no relationship to one another.  Normal fission reactors aren't being built in Europe so why would these ones get built?  Yes, I know there are a few nuclear projects ongoing, but their numbers and generation capacity is small compared to the numbers being retired.

I have zero doubt that RR and Hyundai can scale up production, but you are leaving aside a bunch of other issues that have to get resolved first:

• Somehow instill in people a desire for nuclear power - have you got a plan to accomplish this?
• Get politicians elected who reflect that desire - should be reasonably straightforward if you accomplish the first goal, but will take what - an addition 2-4 years depending on how often elections take place? 
• get the new plants licensed and sited (another year or two under ideal circumstances)
• THEN start scaling up production

What's your budget for changing the mindset of the average European?  what's the plan?  How long have you got in mind to accomplish this?  

 

Edit:  I just skimmed through the brochure from Rolls Royce on SMR's that is linked on the webpage. It's dated from 2017, and states that with an immediate committment they can have the first one in service by 2028.  Assuming nothing has been done (correct me if I am wrong) that means that a start NOW would put the first one in service by 2033.  That's perfectly within my timeframe of taking 20 years before there is any measurable impact as a result of the decision.  Do you think they will suddennly be spitting out one every couple of months  in 2033 given that they say it will take 5 years to construct each one?  Because that's the level of reactor production required to add the same level of electricity production as one of these large offshore wind farms you referenced.  

Eric I agree with many of your points and I'm not saying its the answer or some holy grail but theyre worth persuing dont you think?

Politically the UK isnt against nuclear at all which is why we are building new fission stations. I know this isnt the case in the US.

Also frankly I couldnt give a toss what happens in the EU as the UK isnt part of it so isnt governed by their crazy laws from Brussels. Selfishly I just want the UK to sort itself out. Exploring all our options is a sensible approach IMO some will come on stream and some wont.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

6 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Those are maximum output nameplate capacities - yeah - I used m for million instead of G for giga - so confusing - I am used to a little bit different nomenclature.  

Catch is that for wind and solar, nameplate capacity and actual average generating capacities are grossly different. 

6.4 GW of namaplate coal plants can reasonably be expected to actually put out between 5 and 5.5 GW of electricity on demand.  

6.4 GW of nameplate wind turbines can only be expected to put out ~ 2.25GW of electricity on average (without control over exactly when)

As a result, if you want to replace that 6.4 GW of of coal plants with wind,  you will on average need to build ~ 13 GW of wind power.  Then you need to build some MORE capacity to account for time periods when the wind facilities are operating at a low capacity due to weather factors, but demand is average, or even higher than average.  Exacty what this other capacity will look like varies from place to place, but it has to be either dispatchable (hydro, natural gas or other fossil fuel) or dependent on factors which don't affect the local windpower resources (solar or renewables from a long distance away where the climate is different are good examples)    

 

Edit:  I am not 'knocking' projects like Hornsea - they are incredibly impressive, necessary, and major accomplishments.  We need more of them as a species and fast. 

Yes agreed that is nameplate capacity and youre never going to get anywhere near that in the real world.

My point is we are doing something and we are building new nucs. We must retain existing stations for as long as possible until all of this new build infrastructure is in place and we also need to have large scale battery back up for when the wind doesnt blow.

Last year on average the UK produced 7.3GW of wind generation which was 24.1% of the energy required for the UK.

I believe the max produced was just over 13GW

Gas made up 40% of generation so we have a ways to go yet!

[Eric Gagen + 713]

4 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Eric I agree with many of your points and I'm not saying its the answer or some holy grail but theyre worth persuing dont you think?

Politically the UK isnt against nuclear at all which is why we are building new fission stations. I know this isnt the case in the US.

Also frankly I couldnt give a toss what happens in the EU as the UK isnt part of it so isnt governed by their crazy laws from Brussels. Selfishly I just want the UK to sort itself out. Exploring all our options is a sensible approach IMO some will come on stream and some wont.

I am grouping Western Europe together because in the EU or not,  all the countries (bar France which aggressively pursued nuclear power early) are in the same boat:  very limited internal energy supplies, and a very high dependence on imports of fossil fuels.  The exceptions are so small in their economies and populations that they aren't really relevent to the big picture.  the UK is somewhat unique as the only one with significant (albeit declining) fossil fuel resources as well as a significant economy and population. Perhaps you all will navigate this mess better than others.  Regardless,  you will be pulled along with your close neighbors by their decisions.  If (for example) continental Europe makes decisions which greatly increase the prices of LNG or piped natural gas,  the UK will wind up paying very similar prices due to geography.  At least for the foreseeable future the local price for natural gas will 'set' the prices for electricity because it is dispatchable, and available in quantities large enough, and flexible enough to perform peaking functions.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

4 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes agreed that is nameplate capacity and youre never going to get anywhere near that in the real world.

My point is we are doing something and we are building new nucs. We must retain existing stations for as long as possible until all of this new build infrastructure is in place and we also need to have large scale battery back up for when the wind doesnt blow.

Last year on average the UK produced 7.3GW of wind generation which was 24.1% of the energy required for the UK.

I believe the max produced was just over 13GW

Gas made up 40% of generation so we have a ways to go yet!

yeah - good on you for building some new nukes.  Honestly though,  you guys are in the midst of scaling up wind and can probably get it done with a large enough capacity to resolve any reasonably issues faster than you can figure out how to construct and deploy some new sort of nuclear power source.  IF these SMR projects were 'in progress' the way these major shallow water offshore wind facilities are, it would be different, but the reality is that the decisions that can/could fix the current problem were made 5-10 years ago.  you can't make new decisions now to fix the current issues.  It appears likely that by the time the 'next' crisis comes up that SMR will be on old fashioned solution from the last decade, and that some other fix will be implemented (likely some sort of large scale energy storage battery mechanism) 

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

1 minute ago, Eric Gagen said:

I am grouping Western Europe together because in the EU or not,  all the countries (bar France which aggressively pursued nuclear power early) are in the same boat:  very limited internal energy supplies, and a very high dependence on imports of fossil fuels.  The exceptions are so small in their economies and populations that they aren't really relevent to the big picture.  the UK is somewhat unique as the only one with significant (albeit declining) fossil fuel resources as well as a significant economy and population. Perhaps you all will navigate this mess better than others.  Regardless,  you will be pulled along with your close neighbors by their decisions.  If (for example) continental Europe makes decisions which greatly increase the prices of LNG or piped natural gas,  the UK will wind up paying very similar prices due to geography.  At least for the foreseeable future the local price for natural gas will 'set' the prices for electricity because it is dispatchable, and available in quantities large enough, and flexible enough to perform peaking functions.  

Yes agreed which is why we need to diversify away from being so reliant on gas for electricity production.

The UK is fortunate to be an island and have numerous areas to build offshore that are shallow most of mainland Europe arent so lucky.

Germany for 1 will be in trouble as they have limited areas for large scale wind farms, practically no solar and dont have any new nuclear after Fukushima. As the Stones said "Its a gas, gas, gas" for them!

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

9 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

yeah - good on you for building some new nukes.  Honestly though,  you guys are in the midst of scaling up wind and can probably get it done with a large enough capacity to resolve any reasonably issues faster than you can figure out how to construct and deploy some new sort of nuclear power source.  IF these SMR projects were 'in progress' the way these major shallow water offshore wind facilities are, it would be different, but the reality is that the decisions that can/could fix the current problem were made 5-10 years ago.  you can't make new decisions now to fix the current issues.  It appears likely that by the time the 'next' crisis comes up that SMR will be on old fashioned solution from the last decade, and that some other fix will be implemented (likely some sort of large scale energy storage battery mechanism) 

Maybe so Eric time will tell

Who knows we may have fusion or travelling wave reactors by then.

I agree that wind is the easiest option, honestly the levels of investment in wind projects is just crazy over here.

Almost all oil + gas companies and powergen companies are trying to diversify into wind.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes agreed which is why we need to diversify away from being so reliant on gas for electricity production.

The UK is fortunate to be an island and have numerous areas to build offshore that are shallow most of mainland Europe arent so lucky.

Germany for 1 will be in trouble as they have limited areas for large scale wind farms, practically no solar and dont have any new nuclear after Fukushima. As the Stones said "Its a gas, gas, gas" for them!

Yeah - Germany is in a special problem situation. I expect they will be burning a lot more lignite (brown coal) for a lot longer than anyone has imagined, due to a lack of alternatives. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, Rob Plant said:

Thats a pretty old graph Ron

Try this which is live data (refreshed every 5 minutes)

https://grid.iamkate.com/

If you scroll down you can see the supply and demand over the last 12 months

Thanks, I was just adding that it was 2009 figures. 

[Starschy + 211]

Those RR are 90% marketing. There is not a single Project agreed. Not even a test system is running for at least 3 years. The disadvantage is that allover we would have nuclear reactors, and for that, there is no qualified Personal available.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, Starschy said:

Those RR are 90% marketing. There is not a single Project agreed. Not even a test system is running for at least 3 years. The disadvantage is that allover we would have nuclear reactors, and for that, there is no qualified Personal available.

 

RR have been building military PWR's for almost 60 years. There is a lot of transferable skills sets there including workforce skills

However I agree that nuclear isn't a short or even medium term answer to the hiatus in new build over the last 30 years. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by NickW

[Eric Gagen + 713]

8 minutes ago, Starschy said:

Those RR are 90% marketing. There is not a single Project agreed. Not even a test system is running for at least 3 years. The disadvantage is that allover we would have nuclear reactors, and for that, there is no qualified Personal available.

 

It's not just marketing.  I am 100% certain they have done some real engineering behind the product, and that it's 'ready' at least from the point of view of being ready for them to announce it for sale, and they expect to be able to make one if someone starts to pay for it.  That said, for projects of this sort, having the technology mature, and an understanding of what to do is very different from actually making it work at a particular site in a particular regulatory framework.  The 90% of the engineering remaining is to move from workable proposal to buildable blueprint, to barebones facility, to operational facility.  There is a lot to be done in each of these phases.  

[NickW + 2,714]

Including Hornsea 2 the UK will commissioned another 3.2GW of offshore wind in 2022. Those projects will all have capacity factors >40%. 

2023/24 there is another 2.9GW

After that there are the Dogger bank projects 3.6GW in (2025-27)

Hornsea 3, 2.4GW - (2025-26)

Moray - 1.2GW (2025)

East Anglia 1,2,3 - 3.1GW - (2026-27)

Rampion 2 - 1.2W (2026-28)

Norfolk Vanguard & Boreas 3.6GW (2027-2030)

The Uk will need a lot of interconnectors & extra storage capacity. 

 

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

6 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

It's not just marketing.  I am 100% certain they have done some real engineering behind the product, and that it's 'ready' at least from the point of view of being ready for them to announce it for sale, and they expect to be able to make one if someone starts to pay for it.  That said, for projects of this sort, having the technology mature, and an understanding of what to do is very different from actually making it work at a particular site in a particular regulatory framework.  The 90% of the engineering remaining is to move from workable proposal to buildable blueprint, to barebones facility, to operational facility.  There is a lot to be done in each of these phases.  

I did my post grad with some RR & BAE guys. They said that the military divisions would often work on cross over civilian proposals in various areas when there were lulls in military type work. Every reason to think their PWR team would have been doing this. 

Basically RR / BAE approach to keeping skills sets on the payroll and not get bored. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

Just now, NickW said:

I did my post grad with some RR & BAE guys. They said that the military divisions would often work on cross over civilian proposals in various areas when there were lulls in military type work. Every reason to think their PWR team would have been doing this. 

Basically RR / BAE approach to keeping skills sets on the payroll and not get bored. 

I am sure that to some degree they do.  My comment about the 'new' product was the SMR (Small Modular Reactor) item.  Once you get past the reactor itself though, all of it is 100% standard steam turbine stuff.  Hi tech, yes, but it's the same for a coal plant, a nuke plant or a combined cycle gas plant, so those parts are completely interchangeable.  

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

I did my post grad with some RR & BAE guys. They said that the military divisions would often work on cross over civilian proposals in various areas when there were lulls in military type work. Every reason to think their PWR team would have been doing this. 

Basically RR / BAE approach to keeping skills sets on the payroll and not get bored. 

RR + BAE are busy busy busy with Astute and Dreadnought nuclear subs amongst other projects.