Britain makes it almost 12 days with NO COAL

[Rodent + 1,424]

Britain has broken a previous record, going without coal for nearly 12 days.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/29/britain-nears-12-days-without-coal/

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 5/29/2019 at 11:32 AM, Rodent said:

Britain has broken a previous record, going without coal for nearly 12 days.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/29/britain-nears-12-days-without-coal/

How much gas did they burn? 

[NickW + 2,714]

11 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

How much gas did they burn? 

natural gas consumption has been falling in the UK for the last 20 years despite the 'dash for gas', rise in population , and fall in the use of coal and nuclear. 

End use efficiency is one reason. There maybe another....

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/789482/ET_4.1.xls

Edited June 2, 2019 by NickW

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 5/30/2019 at 2:32 AM, Rodent said:

Britain has broken a previous record, going without coal for nearly 12 days.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/29/britain-nears-12-days-without-coal/

 

 

On 6/3/2019 at 8:43 AM, NickW said:

natural gas consumption has been falling in the UK for the last 20 years despite the 'dash for gas', rise in population , and fall in the use of coal and nuclear. 

End use efficiency is one reason. There maybe another....

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-generation-2018-falls-to-lowest-since-1994

As you can see from this analysis the two big movers over the nine years of the graph are wind and biomass.. wind is a nuisance on the grid but biomass isn't - although just how useful it is to import wood from America to fuel generators in the UK is open to question (that's a part of biomass generation) - so that's how they've been able to have comparatively high, and increasing levels of renewables. Wind is still bigger than biomass but its 10 per cent or so share can be balanced by fast reaction gas and even diesel.. the article linked below is old now but does look at the problems involved in coping with wind.. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/06/diesel-farms-national-grid-tax-breaks

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, markslawson said:

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-generation-2018-falls-to-lowest-since-1994

As you can see from this analysis the two big movers over the nine years of the graph are wind and biomass.. wind is a nuisance on the grid but biomass isn't - although just how useful it is to import wood from America to fuel generators in the UK is open to question (that's a part of biomass generation) - so that's how they've been able to have comparatively high, and increasing levels of renewables. Wind is still bigger than biomass but its 10 per cent or so share can be balanced by fast reaction gas and even diesel.. the article linked below is old now but does look at the problems involved in coping with wind.. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/06/diesel-farms-national-grid-tax-breaks

Any evidence that wind at current levels is a nuisance? A relative of mine until recently managed a fair part of the UK national grid and said up to about 20% of generation capacity required no change and capacities above that could be managed easily with some investment.

I don't particularly like the diesel gen sets but I recall many of these have actually replaced knackered OCGT as the improvements in diesel technology and fuel efficiency have made these more economical to run especially at the smaller end of the generating range. In due course many of these will be replaced by batteries - especially the growing numbers of 'second lfe' EV batteries.

https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learn-more/technical-comparisons/combustion-engine-vs-gas-turbine-advantages-of-modularity

Lastly I'm no great fan of importing half the forests of North American to burn as fuel either. Biomass of this type should have really been restricted to small scale CHP units utilising waste wood.

[markslawson + 1,042]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

Any evidence that wind at current levels is a nuisance?

10-12 per cent wind would be manageable, but a nuisance certainly. Grid managers have to keep on working around it when it stops-starts-varies, remember.. I was interested in your relative's statement that the grid could handle up to 20 per cent wind. That's probably a reflection of the fact that much of the generating capacity is now gas, which load-follows much better than coal. If you think that batteries are going to replace those diesels anytime soon well point triumphantly when they do. Don't hold your breath waiting. We can agree on biomass stuff, but that's where green madness is taking us.. leave it with you

[Red + 252]

16 minutes ago, markslawson said:

10-12 per cent wind would be manageable, but a nuisance certainly. Grid managers have to keep on working around it when it stops-starts-varies, remember.. I was interested in your relative's statement that the grid could handle up to 20 per cent wind. That's probably a reflection of the fact that much of the generating capacity is now gas, which load-follows much better than coal.

Nick asked for evidence.

Wind are solar are both predictable, so "work arounds" are not really an issue. 

As for batteries, they are available, but by and large not yet economic.  Adding them progressively is not a problem, and this project is thinking along those lines

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 6/7/2019 at 10:57 AM, Red said:

Nick asked for evidence.

Red - pick up something on renewables that's not from activists and read it.. work arounds are a nuisance.   10 per cent is manageable for wind however, as I said..  As for your link it is yet more of the same fantasy which permeates all writing on renewables.. the project "finally" got finance long after it started, so they were building that project on spec? What? And now they are considering a gigantic battery that may operate for four hours (see the rating) at the same output as the project. Doesn't sound very firm to me.. as for the prices, remember they are being quoted without the Large Scale generating certificates which effectively double the price.  And they had to build a synchronous condenser to keep the regulators happy. If you check back on the links you'll see they don't say anything about the cost of the device.. those are just a few of the questions I would have.. anyway, thanks for the link. Leave it with you.. 

[Red + 252]

11 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Red - pick up something on renewables that's not from activists and read it.. work arounds are a nuisance.

Again, lots of opinion and no evidence.

Europe has addressed these issues and you are merely in denial.

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Red - pick up something on renewables that's not from activists and read it.. work arounds are a nuisance.   10 per cent is manageable for wind however, as I said..  As for your link it is yet more of the same fantasy which permeates all writing on renewables.. the project "finally" got finance long after it started, so they were building that project on spec? What? And now they are considering a gigantic battery that may operate for four hours (see the rating) at the same output as the project. Doesn't sound very firm to me.. as for the prices, remember they are being quoted without the Large Scale generating certificates which effectively double the price.  And they had to build a synchronous condenser to keep the regulators happy. If you check back on the links you'll see they don't say anything about the cost of the device.. those are just a few of the questions I would have.. anyway, thanks for the link. Leave it with you.. 

Evidence please?

You made the claim so its incumbent upon you to back this up with some evidence.

This is an extract from the BM reports website on metered wind output in the UK over the last 24 hours. Wind is fairly predictably out to about 5 days and within 5 hours the predicted outturn is within 90% of estimates and 97% within 1 hour. The biggest hourly change over the last 24 hours is about 300MW in a system with around 65GW of generating capacity. This is not a nuisance and can be managed with minimal adjustments.

 

https://www2.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=eds/main

 

 

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

Red - pick up something on renewables that's not from activists and read it.. work arounds are a nuisance.   10 per cent is manageable for wind however, as I said..  As for your link it is yet more of the same fantasy which permeates all writing on renewables.. the project "finally" got finance long after it started, so they were building that project on spec? What? And now they are considering a gigantic battery that may operate for four hours (see the rating) at the same output as the project. Doesn't sound very firm to me.. as for the prices, remember they are being quoted without the Large Scale generating certificates which effectively double the price.  And they had to build a synchronous condenser to keep the regulators happy. If you check back on the links you'll see they don't say anything about the cost of the device.. those are just a few of the questions I would have.. anyway, thanks for the link. Leave it with you.. 

See my link to BM reports - this is a reporting mechanism for UK generation, transmission and consumption. Its  not an 'activists' website.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 6/7/2019 at 1:26 AM, markslawson said:

10-12 per cent wind would be manageable, but a nuisance certainly. Grid managers have to keep on working around it when it stops-starts-varies, remember.. I was interested in your relative's statement that the grid could handle up to 20 per cent wind. That's probably a reflection of the fact that much of the generating capacity is now gas, which load-follows much better than coal. If you think that batteries are going to replace those diesels anytime soon well point triumphantly when they do. Don't hold your breath waiting. We can agree on biomass stuff, but that's where green madness is taking us.. leave it with you

The problem here is your ignorance about how wind power works on a macro scale  is leading you to assume a Countries / regions entire wind fleet behaves like a singular small wind turbine with those characteristics - they simply don't. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

The problem here is your ignorance about how wind power works on a macro scale  is leading you to assume a Countries / regions entire wind fleet behaves like a singular small wind turbine with those characteristics - they simply don't. 

Nick - its the other way around.. It is you who are unaware of the basics in this area.. its well know and I was writing this back in the 1990s, that when wind goes down in Europe it does so over a very wide area and does so for days.. note this article from Bloomberg.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/u-k-wind-drought-heads-into-9th-day-with-no-relief-for-weeks This is a well known phenomena in Europe, a winter low, and happen every now and then, Its different in Australia, here the calm spells last for perhaps a couple of days and I don't think are as profound.. you still get some energy. You hoped to get out of this by quoting wind stats over a single day! Now its you who have to proved that wind isn't a total nuisance for any network - if its around 10 per cent maybe it doesn't matter if there is no generation for days on end, as the other generators can cover, but when you get to 20 per cent how much reserve capacity will be needed and how quickly can it be brought on stream? Bear in mind there is very little hydro in the UK and even the diesel generators would not make up such a shortfall.. sorry, but you as you can see, the picture is verty much more complicated than you thought.. leave it with you.

 

[Red + 252]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - its the other way around.. It is you who are unaware of the basics in this area.. its well know and I was writing this back in the 1990s, that when wind goes down in Europe it does so over a very wide area and does so for days.. 

That is a very different idea to what you claimed.

Nobody in the renewables industry works on the basis that it's windy every day, or that the sun always shines.

The reality that you keep ignoring is "predictability."  Weather forecasts allow the renewables sectors to plan generation capacity well ahead, and plan it with a relatively high level of confidence.  

At the other end of the scale, Austria, Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands are able to trade into the spot market 5 minutes ahead as they have the necessary data to back what they bid for.

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - its the other way around.. It is you who are unaware of the basics in this area.. its well know and I was writing this back in the 1990s, that when wind goes down in Europe it does so over a very wide area and does so for days.. note this article from Bloomberg.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/u-k-wind-drought-heads-into-9th-day-with-no-relief-for-weeks This is a well known phenomena in Europe, a winter low, and happen every now and then, Its different in Australia, here the calm spells last for perhaps a couple of days and I don't think are as profound.. you still get some energy. You hoped to get out of this by quoting wind stats over a single day! Now its you who have to proved that wind isn't a total nuisance for any network - if its around 10 per cent maybe it doesn't matter if there is no generation for days on end, as the other generators can cover, but when you get to 20 per cent how much reserve capacity will be needed and how quickly can it be brought on stream? Bear in mind there is very little hydro in the UK and even the diesel generators would not make up such a shortfall.. sorry, but you as you can see, the picture is verty much more complicated than you thought.. leave it with you.

 

No sh1t Sherlock - Wind is variable!

Silly article really claiming that the UK went without wind power for nine days when wind output has been there for the whole period. Early summer lulls in wind output  are of little consequence as demand is low, solar output partly compensates and idle gas plant can make up and shortfalls.

Back to your original claim of wind power being a nuisance - lets see the evidence then from the grid operators? 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - its the other way around.. It is you who are unaware of the basics in this area.. its well know and I was writing this back in the 1990s, that when wind goes down in Europe it does so over a very wide area and does so for days.. note this article from Bloomberg.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/u-k-wind-drought-heads-into-9th-day-with-no-relief-for-weeks This is a well known phenomena in Europe, a winter low, and happen every now and then, Its different in Australia, here the calm spells last for perhaps a couple of days and I don't think are as profound.. you still get some energy. You hoped to get out of this by quoting wind stats over a single day! Now its you who have to proved that wind isn't a total nuisance for any network - if its around 10 per cent maybe it doesn't matter if there is no generation for days on end, as the other generators can cover, but when you get to 20 per cent how much reserve capacity will be needed and how quickly can it be brought on stream? Bear in mind there is very little hydro in the UK and even the diesel generators would not make up such a shortfall.. sorry, but you as you can see, the picture is verty much more complicated than you thought.. leave it with you.

 

That link is typical of the usual drivel you post in support of your anti renewables jihad. 

The article is dated the 7th June. Its states in a subheading Forecasters see wind output staying low for at least two weeks

Output as I write from monitored turbines - 6633MW which is about 19% of UK demand. More if you consider the additional contribution of un-monitored wind output. 

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=eds/main

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 6/10/2019 at 10:03 PM, Red said:

That is a very different idea to what you claimed.

Nobody in the renewables industry works on the basis that it's windy every day, or that the sun always shines.

The reality that you keep ignoring is "predictability."  Weather forecasts allow the renewables sectors to plan generation capacity well ahead, and plan it with a relatively high level of confidence.  

At the other end of the scale, Austria, Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands are able to trade into the spot market 5 minutes ahead as they have the necessary data to back what they bid for. 

It's all fine and well to predict shortfalls, but you still have to generate electricity.  That means you need a reserve fleet that matches your renewable fleet, which essentially means you must build two separate systems, which is expensive.  Hence, incorporating renewables beyond some small percentage is expensive.  That's the problem. 

[Red + 252]

8 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

It's all fine and well to predict shortfalls, but you still have to generate electricity.  That means you need a reserve fleet that matches your renewable fleet, which essentially means you must build two separate systems, which is expensive.  Hence, incorporating renewables beyond some small percentage is expensive.  That's the problem. 

That's very funny.  Electrons are not really that fussy once they are in the wires.

Once our inverter modifies our rooftop solar's DC current into AC so we can use it in the household, we can also feed excess back into the grid.

Maybe read up on how energy grids work before making up such rubbish.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

12 minutes ago, Red said:

That's very funny.  Electrons are not really that fussy once they are in the wires.

Once our inverter modifies our rooftop solar's DC current into AC so we can use it in the household, we can also feed excess back into the grid.

Maybe read up on how energy grids work before making up such rubbish.

I'm an engineer; I know how the grid works. 

Despite my incredible directness, you've missed my point entirely.  I can only conclude that you're doing so intentionally. 

[Red + 252]

5 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I'm an engineer; I know how the grid works. 

Despite my incredible directness, you've missed my point entirely.  I can only conclude that you're doing so intentionally. 

I read what you wrote. 

Europe has addressed the challenges arising from the changing generation mix where non-synchronous generation replaces or displaces synchronous generation. Yes there is a one off expense of integration, and the system will be more complex.  However in the context of renewables having no fuel costs you have focussed on only one side of the equation, and it's the smaller fraction.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

I am just going to leave this here for comments

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/1806083/siemens-gamesa-launches-revolutionary-thermal-storage-pilot?

[markslawson + 1,042]

11 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I am just going to leave this here for comments

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/1806083/siemens-gamesa-launches-revolutionary-thermal-storage-pilot?

There are a lot of alternate energy storage technologies now on offer. If one works at a reasonable cost I've got no objection  at all, but I've now seen so many different proposals that I've lost track.. needs an independent evaluation then a full-on, full-scale trial.. The article says 1,000 tonnes of volcanic rock to store 130 MWh for a week.. that's not much more than current batteries and its requires a generator unit to get the power out again.. So its a load of hot rocks with a power station attached. Well, whatever, call us when the trials are complete.. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 6/15/2019 at 2:55 AM, markslawson said:

needs an independent evaluation then a full-on, full-scale trial..

I thought this was close to that? 

 

On 6/15/2019 at 2:55 AM, markslawson said:

nd its requires a generator unit to get the power out again.. So its a load of hot rocks with a power station attached. Well, whatever, call us when the trials are complete.. 

Mark, 

after I read the article I did some further research. And I would actuallly think that you of all people would appreciate this tech. Reasons being that if you can re-purpose ageing coal fired powerplants then 

1) You kick the decom can (cost) down the road

2) lower Capex significantly as existing infrastructure is re-used

3) a lot of coal fired powerplants are built near harbours to enable cheap tranportation of coal. Try to match the location of coalfired powerplants with landing points of power cables from offshore wind farms.

All of above are logical arguments and especially the ones related to CAPEX carry weigth with utilities.