pet peeve of mine too!
most grid side battery storage systems have capacity for 1 or 2 hours at full power. This doesn’t seem much, but AIUI full power is rarely used (or needed).
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
UK switching to electric vehicles discussion
- Thread starter MattA7
- Start date
pet peeve of mine too!
most grid side battery storage systems have capacity for 1 or 2 hours at full power. This doesn’t seem much, but AIUI full power is rarely used (or needed).
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes, all those following this discussion know that energy is power multiplied by time, but don't engage in pedantry when simple 'errors', (I would class this one as the equivalent to a typo), are made even by those who do fully understand the difference.
Disagree - this is being told only half the information that you need to know and not 'equivalent to a typo'. The W/Wh typo is common enough, but being given only the power output of a storage system is useless at best, misleading at worst - it could be the mother of all supercapacitors, capable of 10GW for a few minutes, or it could be something more useful that is capable of returning 10GW to the grid for several hours (or preferably days) at a time.
From what @Bald Rick says, it would be up to 20GWh of storage (around half an hour's UK consumption at time of writing), and whilst the "one/two hours at full power" holds true currently that limits their use to flattening peaks of demand, it doesn't really solve the more concerning "long period of reduced generation output" scenario which we can still cover with thermal power stations at the moment.
Which is why there's a need to invest in tidal power as well, to create a reliable level of generation.
As whilst this is currently fairly expensive compared to other power options, it's still fairly early in its development (so costs could well reduce). However even if it doesn't see costs fall, the fact that other renewables are cheaper than coal/gas (which are likely to see costs increase if Carbon Capture and Storage is needed) could mean that the average is still comparable (and also likely lower than using green hydrogen - especially given that there's a LOT of grey hydrogen which we need to start to replace with green before we start using green hydrogen in significant quantities for other projects).
Ultimately there's going to be a mix of sources of power (and better energy efficiency), which although not removing the risk of lack of power within the system could reduce it to the point where it's no more of a risk than we face this year (where gas supplies are low). As the risk of low solar, low wind, and low hydro across the whole country to the point where we can't keep the lights on from the remaining sources (such as nuclear, tidal and even some gas or some hydrogen) should be reduced. Especially if during the other 8 months there's enough excess supply to create all the green hydrogen to replace or current grey hydrogen use.
This year, so far, we've been fairly lucky with a fairly mild November.
As whilst this is currently fairly expensive compared to other power options, it's still fairly early in its development (so costs could well reduce). However even if it doesn't see costs fall, the fact that other renewables are cheaper than coal/gas (which are likely to see costs increase if Carbon Capture and Storage is needed) could mean that the average is still comparable (and also likely lower than using green hydrogen - especially given that there's a LOT of grey hydrogen which we need to start to replace with green before we start using green hydrogen in significant quantities for other projects).
Ultimately there's going to be a mix of sources of power (and better energy efficiency), which although not removing the risk of lack of power within the system could reduce it to the point where it's no more of a risk than we face this year (where gas supplies are low). As the risk of low solar, low wind, and low hydro across the whole country to the point where we can't keep the lights on from the remaining sources (such as nuclear, tidal and even some gas or some hydrogen) should be reduced. Especially if during the other 8 months there's enough excess supply to create all the green hydrogen to replace or current grey hydrogen use.
This year, so far, we've been fairly lucky with a fairly mild November.
I didn't have any problem understanding what he meant from what was typed.
However back on topic, there was always a 'kinetic' store of energy on the national grid that coped with transient load changes, - not in a form of conventional storage, but as a consequence of virtually all power emanating from rotating generators. With the progressive transition away from turbine driven electromagnetic generators, (excepting nuclear and hydro), the bulk of future power will require specific online instant energy capability to ride out such transient load shifts. Whilst electronic control of online batteries can help, the reliability of large flywheels in the system might be a better mechanism when located at strategic locations in the network. In a different world, a high speed flywheel in a vacuum has been steadily developed with various potential uses. It's origins were in motorsports where Porsche Le Mans cars were subject to repeated heave negative and positive loads with braking and acceleration cycles. Williams also worked on a version when Kinetic Energy Recovery System first appeared on F1 cars. There were size and weight limitations for small vhicles, but the concept later found a use when GKN created the Gyrodrive system for use on hybrid London buses (ADLs I believe).
Now, key to the main topic here of EV charging, a German company has installed a flywheel system to manage the peaks (and troughs I assume) in a charging installation at a Premier Inn hotel in Leipzig. This might be of interests to DNOs in the UK to provide much quicker charger location upgrades without disturbing local network balance.
It depends on what you mean by deployed. Porsche did use it on a Le Mans car but as for road going small vehicles, it was deemed too large to accommodate.
As far as buses were concerned, according to this article:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/02/whatever-happened-to-williams-f1s-flywheel-hybrid-idea/
It did make onto some London buses. Maybe somebody here has more detail to that.
Great, - any details or a project name that I can research please?
Reliable, yes. But still peaky.
for reliable, carbon free baseload, the answer is nuclear.
I agree that nuclear power is still needed, however whilst tidal does have peaks, the tide times around the coast, even places not that far apart tides can be different enough that there's still going to be tidal generation. Probably enough that batteries could even the peaks out a little.
For example the tide time difference between Plymouth and Hayle is about 1:15 whilst Hayle and Minehead are 2 hours apart . As such the Southwest is likely to be able continue to generate tidal power for much of the time as long as there's enough of them.
But if tidal costs more per MWh than nuclear, what’s the point ?
It's currently more expensive, however it's fairly early in its development cycle compared to other systems.
Also even if it's broadly the same cost, many would argue that nuclear has some issues. For instance we (as tax payers) are currently paying £3bn a year in decommissioning costs. Whilst there's concerns about tidal they tend to be with the impact on wildlife.
Also part of the high costs with tidal is to do with grid connections, if these can be shared with off shore wind then the cost can be reduced.
There are already sites within the UK where all you'd need is to add in a turbine to start generation. Two which would for this category that I know of (and I'm sure that there's likely to be others) are Eling Tide Mill (near Southampton) and Carnsew Pool (Hayle, Cornwall) which already have tidal lagoons which could easily generate power (the former is used as a mill, but could probably also be used to generate electricity).
It isn’t though. It’s essentially hydro with slightly different system architecture. And there are tidal power stations out there over half a century old.
it isn’t!
and Shipping.
how can they be shared? What if s windy at the same time as the tide’s in?
How much power would these generate?
Tidal is a waste of time. Environmental impacts are huge and it's ridiculously expensive. A company I was involved with on the periphery tried and got some kit in the sea but it all broke after a very short period of time and the project collapsed into administration with investors losing all of their money, alongside the grants etc that had been sunk into it.
The Severn barrage project is dodgy as hell as well. Just so happens that the perfect stone to build the barrage has to come from a defunct quarry in Cornwall that the guy leading the barrage project just happens to own. Fortunately the Welsh and UK governments seem to have come to their senses in time on that one.
The Severn barrage project is dodgy as hell as well. Just so happens that the perfect stone to build the barrage has to come from a defunct quarry in Cornwall that the guy leading the barrage project just happens to own. Fortunately the Welsh and UK governments seem to have come to their senses in time on that one.
If tidal was feasible, it would have been done a long time ago.
For a continuous production of power, hydro seems to have been overlooked, plus it has the advantage of being able to 'store' power if water is pumped back up when there is a surplus of energy produced. We do have one or two schemes in the UK, but in the same way that small nuclear reactors are being proposed, are there any small hydro schemes which are possible, not necessarily requiring a reservoir, but just relying on natural waterfalls to turn turbines?
For a continuous production of power, hydro seems to have been overlooked, plus it has the advantage of being able to 'store' power if water is pumped back up when there is a surplus of energy produced. We do have one or two schemes in the UK, but in the same way that small nuclear reactors are being proposed, are there any small hydro schemes which are possible, not necessarily requiring a reservoir, but just relying on natural waterfalls to turn turbines?
Tidal barrage technology has been around for decades however tidal stream turbines are a newer technology that is currently having the first commercial deployments.
Cost of tidal stream technology is likely to fall with economies of scale and as the technology matures.
Tidal stream technology has the advantage of lower upfront costs with no barrages required, ability to be deployed more widely and lower impacts on both nature and shipping.
As mentioned up thread co location with offshore turbines is also being considered to share connection costs.
Cost of tidal stream technology is likely to fall with economies of scale and as the technology matures.
Tidal stream technology has the advantage of lower upfront costs with no barrages required, ability to be deployed more widely and lower impacts on both nature and shipping.
As mentioned up thread co location with offshore turbines is also being considered to share connection costs.
Loads, but the power available is small. One of my friends actually has one. I think its maximum output is 10kw, which it rarely achieves. Put another way, you’d need 320,000 of them to equal one Hinkley Point.
reddragon
Established Member
Not actually the case
When we have leaders with investments in oil, gas or Nuclear they will not invest in tidal. I guess we are at least fortunate here in nobody here is invested in coal, unlike Australia & Germany who are deep into coal at Government level thus slow moves to renewable & little nuclear interest.
Others have gone heavily into hydro & tidal simple because they had no oil & gas interests or in Norway's case sales of oil & cheap hydro drove a unique model.
Tidal is cheaper than nuclear. Hydro on our rivers is a no brainer, hardly an environmental issue when we had hundreds of them on our rivers and renewing them has minimal impact.
It is not. The Severn Barrage project wanted a strike price of over £200/MWhr!!
Tidal barrage is not the only option. Tidal stream technology is cheaper.
reddragon
Established Member
Do you think nuclear actually pays all its costs? The true cost of Hinkley Point is several times it's original strike price, Wylfa went bust and they don't pay for the clear up mess afterwards either!
The original fleet of nuclear reactors had a dual purpose.
1. To produce power
2. To produce plutonium for nuclear weapons
It's that latter function which leads to the high decommissioning and waste processing costs. Modern reactors which are designed solely for power generation do not produce anything like the quantity of waste. Eg the reactors on modern Royal Navy submarines and the mooted SMRs do not even need refuelling over their lifespan.
Even the latest reactors have decomission costs which, whilst are supposed to be included in the costs, are still likely to be significant (not that different to the construction costs) and the government is liable if the costs exceed a pre agreed value.
Likewise the borrowing is underwritten by the government to keep the costs down - something which is unlikely that tidal would have access to. Some estimates put this at a saving of around £10bn over the term of the contract (range of £8bn to £20bn).
ABB125
Established Member
So effectively a "fit and forget" solution?
(Obviously I wouldn't suggest actually forgetting about it, as that probably isn't a good idea...
)
reddragon
Established Member
Funnily enough, the billions to cover the cost isn't paid for by the Nuclear energy companies but us as a levy on ALL electricity bills
Well, OK but that would only add less than £5/MWhr to the strike price over the life of the plant. So it's still way cheaper than tidal.
Basically, yes. Idea is at end of life you just remove the reactor vessel and store/bury it somewhere.
And the £200+/MWhr strike price for a barrage project wouldn't impact ALL electricity bills?
Don't forget their are 2 tidal energy technologies. £200 per MWhr for tidal barrage schemes maybe but new tidal stream turbines being deployed over the next few years with a CFD price of £165 or so.
Forecasts suggest this will fall as economies of scale build up over the next decade to around £80 MWhr by the early 2030's.
Tidal stream turbines are likely to end up with prices as cheap or cheaper than nuclear by the time new nuclear plants are commissioned.
Geothermal is also being deployed in a limited way currently but with forecasts that it could build to be a reasonable amount of baseload generation over the next couple of decades.
Co location of industry that needs heat offers a second income as well.
Forecasts suggest this will fall as economies of scale build up over the next decade to around £80 MWhr by the early 2030's.
Tidal stream turbines are likely to end up with prices as cheap or cheaper than nuclear by the time new nuclear plants are commissioned.
Geothermal is also being deployed in a limited way currently but with forecasts that it could build to be a reasonable amount of baseload generation over the next couple of decades.
Co location of industry that needs heat offers a second income as well.
That's still ridiculously expensive.
They won't. And even if they do other technologies will be even cheaper than they are today. Putting stuff in the sea is fundamentally very capital intensive and requires lots of expensive ongoing maintenance.
But they won't. If you approved a project today you'd have to commit to £200/MWhr. If you approve a project in 5 or 10 years it won't deliver for another 5 or 10 years and the strike price will similarly then be absurdly expensive.
Works in Iceland but I doubt it can be do to the same scale here, and what is available is much lower grade. There aren't that many industries that need lots of low grade heat.
It is interesting that there is a lot of investment going on in geothermal heating in Europe, and that the Netherlands has been forecast to surpass Iceland by 2030 (from an almost standing start in 2012!).
Full steam ahead: Geothermal heating
Europe to spend $7.4 billion on geothermal heating, capacity to reach 6.2 GWt by 2030.
Obviously this is more about heating rather than electricity (and nothing to do with EVs) but interesting non the less and perhaps another lesson for the UK.