It's funny that tiny Singapore is an example of a country with different pricing nodes, instead of uniform pricing for the whole place.
The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
311–320 of 396 posts
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Varying output from a nuclear plant is mostly achieved by simply releasing the generated steam into the atmosphere instead of sending it through the turbine[1]. But operating a nuclear plant in this fashion pushes up the price per MWh considerably given their very high cap-ex and op-ex. And while fuel cost is negligible for nuclear, creating more nuclear waste per useful MWh generated is a further drag on costs. So a…
I am skeptical that renewables are cheaper than nuclear when one factors in the impossible amounts of energy storage required to make them meet the same reliability guarantees that nuclear (and fossil) can meet - indeed, as far as I know, there exists no proven, cheap, scalable technology to store power at grid scale at all .
>as far as I know, there exists no proven, cheap, scalable technology to store power at grid scale at all
It's called pumped storage.
We dont need as much storage as people think. Solar and wind anti correlate and a vast amount of demand can be time shifted.
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#313Curtailment, like negative prices, seems like something that it is hard for people to have constructive conversations about. Probably the cheapest and best option is to build more wind and not care too much if it increases curtailment. Yes, all the things mentioned should be looked into and done when it makes financial sense but "wasting wind" is much less a thing to worry about than "burning gas", and I'd rather was…
Balancing a nationwide power grid is very complex. Some energy sources can be started and stopped instantly, but are limited - water. Others are plentiful, but unpredictable - wind. Others are predictable, but take a long time to start and stop - gas, coal(several hours), nuclear(1 day to start, fast to stop, but very expensive). A balanced grid will need all of them, will need them in quantities which can cover faul…
Several power companies are using synchronous condensers with flywheels to increase inertia
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's great when we can use off peak energy for things like this, but they're not as easy to locate onsite as bitcoin miners .. and difficulty with transmission is a big part of the problem
Electric cars have utility as we can use them to transport us from one place to another. Bitcoin on the other hand is just a waste of energy
If you don't understanding anything about Bitcoin's properties and the utility that provides, I can understand why you would think its a waste of energy. But many disagree with you for good reason.
Some people think clothes driers or Christmas lights are a waste of energy, but it's not for them to decide how other people spend the energy they've paid for. Some people think those things are worth the energy cost and so they pay for it. That's their choice to make.
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#315Curtailment, like negative prices, seems like something that it is hard for people to have constructive conversations about. Probably the cheapest and best option is to build more wind and not care too much if it increases curtailment. Yes, all the things mentioned should be looked into and done when it makes financial sense but "wasting wind" is much less a thing to worry about than "burning gas", and I'd rather was…
I've worked in curtailment. It's a fraught shell game. I think it's a great idea, but the system needs better controls. Many companies sign up for curtailment for e.g. heat related reasons who have heat based energy needs. When they get the call, they eat the fine and still benefit because the fine is less than the benefit for enrolling in the program.
What is the benefit for enrolling in the program? Is it just money? Sounds like a very bad system indeed if the fines are lower than the payout.
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting complicating factor here is that much of the UK's installed base of CCTG stations were built during the 90s with the intention of replacing many of the smaller coal-fired stations, which would typically be doing 2-shift operations (i.e., day and evening). Now, those CCGT stations are increasingly used to counterbalance renewables, and (as you point out) are now running on much shorter cycles than they…
The only thing that matters for climate change is the amount of gas burned - the efficiency with which we turn it into work is irrelevant. If we reduce the amount of gas burned, at a cost of burning the remaining gas less efficiently, that's still a win. In a certain sense one should expect lowering usage to inevitably lower efficiency, as a sort of inverse corollary to Jevon's paradox (which states that as efficienc…
You are right up to a point.
The problem is that building wind turbines in Britain has opportunity costs.
For simplicity: assume a status quo of 100% gas. We are burning 100 units of gas for that per year.
Now assume by building a crazy amount of wind turbines we could satisfy 95% of the UK's power demand with renewable. However, for the remaining 5% we'd need to burn 50 units of gas.
In this scenario, efficiency of burning gas drastically plummeted, but so did overall gas use.
However now the question is: for the resources invested into building all those turbines, could we have gotten a better climate bang than 50 units of gas saved?
(All numbers made up, obviously. In practice, we can probably make the economics work. Though we might need to deregulate the grid. It's crazy to pay wind turbines for not running. At least mine bitcoin or smelt aluminum or something.)
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#317I think one of the most important elements is buried - electricity pricing is uniform across the entire UK. That seems nuts to me, and incentivizes building in locations that are less useful - it's likely cheaper to build in Scotland, higher production from more wind, you get paid more (for expected yield plus curtailment apparently), and you have less wear on the equipment when you adjust to lower output.
The politics around changing that would be spectacular to behold. Especially if it resulted in Scotland having cheaper energy. I do wonder how effective a "you get 0.5p off your bill if you can see a wind turbine from your house" rule would be against NIMBYism.
The discount for local wind already exists, currently available in Yorkshire and Wales:
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#318To the commenters saying that wind farms should move South or blaming wind farms or other energy producers. (My opinion and knowledge follows.) That is the whole idea of a robust and efficient transmission network: to transfer power from where it is cheaply generated across even countries; and mitigate any power production or transmission network failures. Say there is bad weather/physical catastrophe/heat wave in X…
Scotland has a different legal system and even historically insisted upon separate versions of otherwise national concerns - for example that is why there is a "National Trust"[1] and a separate "Scottish National Trust".
Since the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament this tendency has only accelerated.
[1] A charity that maintains stately homes and other historic artefacts
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
That really depends on the capex of the hydrogen equipment. It has to be extremely low to justify not curtailing.
Why are electrolyzers so expensive? The glass ones used in school labs are stupidly simple — just some glassware and a couple of electrodes — so why are they so expensive on an industrial scale?
Storing the hydrogen and transporting it to where it is needed is probably the bigger problem. Hydrogen embrittles metal.
Re: The UK is wasting a lot of wind power
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
Varying output from a nuclear plant is mostly achieved by simply releasing the generated steam into the atmosphere instead of sending it through the turbine[1]. But operating a nuclear plant in this fashion pushes up the price per MWh considerably given their very high cap-ex and op-ex. And while fuel cost is negligible for nuclear, creating more nuclear waste per useful MWh generated is a further drag on costs. So a…
I am skeptical that renewables are cheaper than nuclear when one factors in the impossible amounts of energy storage required to make them meet the same reliability guarantees that nuclear (and fossil) can meet - indeed, as far as I know, there exists no proven, cheap, scalable technology to store power at grid scale at all .
Well, nuclear could be cheaper.
Alas, in the real world because of public opinion and political pressure, it's almost impossible to build new nuclear power plants. And those that get build are crazy expensive and overengineered, and invariable overrun their schedule and budget.