This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Taken from the National grid website http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
What an an awesome website for geeks- I love it.
In reply to Billy the fish:
Probs bumped your bill up as they will have had to compensate the conventional generators due to overproducing in the high winds ( bill gets pass onto the consumer )
Probs bumped your bill up as they will have had to compensate the conventional generators due to overproducing in the high winds ( bill gets pass onto the consumer )
In reply to Saor Alba:
Duck bills?
> (In reply to Radioactiveman)
>
> Which bills dont get passed to the consumer?
>
> Which bills dont get passed to the consumer?
Duck bills?
In reply to Radioactiveman:
Isn't the point of the gas power stations that they can quickly vary the output to compensate. I doubt they lose out in the end. Wind, like rain probably averages out over the year.
> (In reply to Billy the fish)
>
>
> Probs bumped your bill up as they will have had to compensate the conventional generators due to overproducing in the high winds ( bill gets pass onto the consumer )
>
>
> Probs bumped your bill up as they will have had to compensate the conventional generators due to overproducing in the high winds ( bill gets pass onto the consumer )
Isn't the point of the gas power stations that they can quickly vary the output to compensate. I doubt they lose out in the end. Wind, like rain probably averages out over the year.
In reply to Billy the fish: Yes, thanks for that. How about if we all turn our kettles on at 1pm....?
In reply to Billy the fish:
Last time we had high winds several nuclear stations had to deload . They were compensated by the wind turbine operators to the tune of £500/MWh for being forced to deload. Too much generation = higher volts/frequency which is bad
Worked out at 1/2 million quid for 8 hrs iirc at one station alone
This increases operational costs for the wind operator which gets passed on to the consumer in terms of their bill.
Last time we had high winds several nuclear stations had to deload . They were compensated by the wind turbine operators to the tune of £500/MWh for being forced to deload. Too much generation = higher volts/frequency which is bad
Worked out at 1/2 million quid for 8 hrs iirc at one station alone
This increases operational costs for the wind operator which gets passed on to the consumer in terms of their bill.
In reply to Billy the fish: Just had a good costing the earth on R4 about how Germany is really going for it in a big way in renewables.
In reply to Billy the fish:
This might also be of interest. http://www.renewables-map.co.uk/index.asp?Status=1
This might also be of interest. http://www.renewables-map.co.uk/index.asp?Status=1
In reply to Radioactiveman:
Looking at the link, that hasn't happened this time, nuclear supply has stayed constant for the past month, so all's well.
> (In reply to Billy the fish)
>
> Last time we had high winds several nuclear stations had to deload . They were compensated by the wind turbine operators to the tune of £500/MWh for being forced to deload. Too much generation = higher volts/frequency which is bad
>
> Worked out at 1/2 million quid for 8 hrs iirc at one station alone
>
> This increases operational costs for the wind operator which gets passed on to the consumer in terms of their bill.
>
> Last time we had high winds several nuclear stations had to deload . They were compensated by the wind turbine operators to the tune of £500/MWh for being forced to deload. Too much generation = higher volts/frequency which is bad
>
> Worked out at 1/2 million quid for 8 hrs iirc at one station alone
>
> This increases operational costs for the wind operator which gets passed on to the consumer in terms of their bill.
Looking at the link, that hasn't happened this time, nuclear supply has stayed constant for the past month, so all's well.
In reply to Phil1919:
Are the Germans not embarking on around 15 new coal fired stations?
Either way , lets face it, if the UK was to be zero emitters tomorrow, the impact on global co2 emissions would be statistically insignificant.
Just look at the world top emitters, who are only going to increase emissions in the future .
The UK are strangling our own economy, making our industry uncompetitive , and our people poor by burdening them with high energy bills, who are mostly owned by foreign companies where most of that money flows out of the country, and for what, you will hardly be able to notice the co2 we save against the global output.
renewables is a bit like homeopathic remedies, you pay a huge amount for tiny amounts. And it is a costly con.
Bonkers,.
> (In reply to Billy the fish) Just had a good costing the earth on R4 about how Germany is really going for it in a big way in renewables.
Are the Germans not embarking on around 15 new coal fired stations?
Either way , lets face it, if the UK was to be zero emitters tomorrow, the impact on global co2 emissions would be statistically insignificant.
Just look at the world top emitters, who are only going to increase emissions in the future .
The UK are strangling our own economy, making our industry uncompetitive , and our people poor by burdening them with high energy bills, who are mostly owned by foreign companies where most of that money flows out of the country, and for what, you will hardly be able to notice the co2 we save against the global output.
renewables is a bit like homeopathic remedies, you pay a huge amount for tiny amounts. And it is a costly con.
Bonkers,.
In reply to Jim C:
Yeah, just watch that money stay in the country as we import rapidly increasing quantities of gas (40%) and coal (60%)
Yeah, just watch that money stay in the country as we import rapidly increasing quantities of gas (40%) and coal (60%)
In reply to Jim C: They are aiming for 80% renewables by 2050. They need to use carbon fuels to tied them over. Too complicated to argue on here. I just prefer to be part of the solution.
In reply to Phil1919:
I have worked in the Power industry for 37 years Clint, , I regularly attend lectures on a wide range of issues, including those hosted from the National Grid, and the Nuclear Institute. The company I have worked for during these years builds Nuclear;Coal; Gas; Biomass;Power Stations , and supply CCS; FGD plant ; wind turbines etc etc.
In what way are you 'part of 'The Solution' , what is your expertise on this subject.?
> (In reply to Jim C)
Too complicated to argue on here. I just prefer to be part of the solution.I have worked in the Power industry for 37 years Clint, , I regularly attend lectures on a wide range of issues, including those hosted from the National Grid, and the Nuclear Institute. The company I have worked for during these years builds Nuclear;Coal; Gas; Biomass;Power Stations , and supply CCS; FGD plant ; wind turbines etc etc.
In what way are you 'part of 'The Solution' , what is your expertise on this subject.?
In reply to stevieb:
That's because they're paying the gas/thermal plants not to produce the power instead. You're saving gas in not running them, but the infrastructure, maintenance and staffing costs don't go away, and I imagine the operators get paid for not having their power bought.
Look at the red line on the "Weekly Nuclear/Coal/CCGT (GW)" and "Monthly Nuclear/Coal/CCGT (GW)' graphs.
> Looking at the link, that hasn't happened this time, nuclear supply has stayed constant for the past month, so all's well.
That's because they're paying the gas/thermal plants not to produce the power instead. You're saving gas in not running them, but the infrastructure, maintenance and staffing costs don't go away, and I imagine the operators get paid for not having their power bought.
Look at the red line on the "Weekly Nuclear/Coal/CCGT (GW)" and "Monthly Nuclear/Coal/CCGT (GW)' graphs.
In reply to thesaunter:
Why? Most companies have seasonable variation in output, you factor it in. I thought the advantage of gas was the easily variable output. So nuke runs constant, coal has a seasonal dip and gas handles the hourly variation and renewables.
There is a lot of bollocks about renewables, subsidies and suchlike that is really just used by NIMBY's to justify why they don't want a wind turbine near them even though they support green energy with their one low powered light bulb.
Why? Most companies have seasonable variation in output, you factor it in. I thought the advantage of gas was the easily variable output. So nuke runs constant, coal has a seasonal dip and gas handles the hourly variation and renewables.
There is a lot of bollocks about renewables, subsidies and suchlike that is really just used by NIMBY's to justify why they don't want a wind turbine near them even though they support green energy with their one low powered light bulb.
In reply to Jim C:
I think you forget the fantastic mountain biking to be had on the 100s of miles of roads built to service the turbines (wonder how much concrete you have to pour per turbine - a lot).
I think you forget the fantastic mountain biking to be had on the 100s of miles of roads built to service the turbines (wonder how much concrete you have to pour per turbine - a lot).
In reply to Jim C:
I work for National Grid currently, and a lot of the more experienced guys are of the same opinion as you, but then again they're the same guys who, when you've found an endangered species in or near your proposed construction area, say "Have you told anyone else about it yet?" Most of the younger guys though seem to be of the "Wind power is far from ideal yet; how will we make it work?" school of thought.
I work for National Grid currently, and a lot of the more experienced guys are of the same opinion as you, but then again they're the same guys who, when you've found an endangered species in or near your proposed construction area, say "Have you told anyone else about it yet?" Most of the younger guys though seem to be of the "Wind power is far from ideal yet; how will we make it work?" school of thought.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle: Off-shore wind when HVDC catches up so it is more efficient. There are also lots of other benefits to HVDC. Undergrad eng here so i am prob wrong. I didnt think it was time for wind, but in the next ten years.
In reply to Philip:
Seasonal variation can be factored in. Wind less so; although forecasts of wind continue to improve...
The rapid response of gas is one of its advantages as you say. There are also costs associate with them, and those costs don't go away if you turn them off for a day or a week.
That gas plant costs significant money to build; as an investment it makes sense if you're running them and generating and selling power. If the wind displaces the gas half the time then you're only making half the return on your investment with the gas plant, or in other words wind just made it 2x as expensive. Unless you pay them to not generate, more than doubling bills for the consumer for the fraction of their energy that comes from gas backed wind.
You'll note from the graphs that they are running out of rapid response gas to turn off when the wind blows. Double the number of wind turbines and we'll need more gas plant as their backup.
Personally I am worried that if it continues there will be a choice between costs rising insanely or the grid becoming destabilised by to much wind. Mind you the watchdog think there is a rising risk the grid is going to destabilise through ageing base load capacity not being replaced because the government can't make decisions - http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/WhlMkts/monitoring-energy-security/elec-cap...
Seasonal variation can be factored in. Wind less so; although forecasts of wind continue to improve...
The rapid response of gas is one of its advantages as you say. There are also costs associate with them, and those costs don't go away if you turn them off for a day or a week.
That gas plant costs significant money to build; as an investment it makes sense if you're running them and generating and selling power. If the wind displaces the gas half the time then you're only making half the return on your investment with the gas plant, or in other words wind just made it 2x as expensive. Unless you pay them to not generate, more than doubling bills for the consumer for the fraction of their energy that comes from gas backed wind.
You'll note from the graphs that they are running out of rapid response gas to turn off when the wind blows. Double the number of wind turbines and we'll need more gas plant as their backup.
Personally I am worried that if it continues there will be a choice between costs rising insanely or the grid becoming destabilised by to much wind. Mind you the watchdog think there is a rising risk the grid is going to destabilise through ageing base load capacity not being replaced because the government can't make decisions - http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/WhlMkts/monitoring-energy-security/elec-cap...
In reply to thesaunter:
It'ssomething thatneeds addressing, but should hopefully be mitigated to a large extent by 'smart' grids and more HVDC interconnects to other countries. The wind blows at different times here than it does in Germany, as an example.
It'ssomething thatneeds addressing, but should hopefully be mitigated to a large extent by 'smart' grids and more HVDC interconnects to other countries. The wind blows at different times here than it does in Germany, as an example.
In reply to Billy the fish: Amazing what the web continues to turn up...is it available as an Android app - and is it a real chart ?
In reply to thesaunter:
I don't quite understand this line of thought. Most power generation is run commercially. The power output is sold ahead of time, a months, months, or even years. When there is an over-generation scenario, ie supply exceeds demand, the prompt price of power falls, generators buy back what they pre-sold, and turn their generation down. Gas is pretty much the most flexible...so they tend to turn down first...it is closely linked with the price of gas, so they then sell out their excess gas...all tneds to work quite well.
I don't think anyone gets "compensated"...
I don't quite understand this line of thought. Most power generation is run commercially. The power output is sold ahead of time, a months, months, or even years. When there is an over-generation scenario, ie supply exceeds demand, the prompt price of power falls, generators buy back what they pre-sold, and turn their generation down. Gas is pretty much the most flexible...so they tend to turn down first...it is closely linked with the price of gas, so they then sell out their excess gas...all tneds to work quite well.
I don't think anyone gets "compensated"...
In reply to Chris Craggs:
If it was about energy security why did we shut the mines.?
They said they were uneconomic.
NOW they say it is ok to spend billions on less inefficient generators , to prevent importing coal that we already had.
would it not have been better to spend the money getting our own coal out of the ground, but now of course they have all been left to flood and collapse, that was clever.
> (In reply to Jim C)
>
> Is it about just about reducing CO2 or also about energy security?
>
>
> Chris
>
> Is it about just about reducing CO2 or also about energy security?
>
>
> Chris
If it was about energy security why did we shut the mines.?
They said they were uneconomic.
NOW they say it is ok to spend billions on less inefficient generators , to prevent importing coal that we already had.
would it not have been better to spend the money getting our own coal out of the ground, but now of course they have all been left to flood and collapse, that was clever.
In reply to Humphrey Jungle:
About a thousand tonnes steel and concrete for the anchor only, not counting the roads.
https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php
> (In reply to Jim C)
>
> I think you forget the fantastic mountain biking to be had on the 100s of miles of roads built to service the turbines (wonder how much concrete you have to pour per turbine - a lot).
>
> I think you forget the fantastic mountain biking to be had on the 100s of miles of roads built to service the turbines (wonder how much concrete you have to pour per turbine - a lot).
About a thousand tonnes steel and concrete for the anchor only, not counting the roads.
https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php
In reply to Billy the fish: I heard that 'president' salmond has a big plan......the more turbines that he can stick on a corbett or munro the better.
It may be his overall plan to get scotland into europe by flying there! - depending on wind direction of course
It may be his overall plan to get scotland into europe by flying there! - depending on wind direction of course
In reply to Bobbsy:
If there are unforeseen load/demand changes, then National Grid will pay to constrain a generator who is prevented from supplying the wattage they'd planned on supplying for that period of time. With the improved models being developed for forecasting wind, this should become less and less over time.
If there are unforeseen load/demand changes, then National Grid will pay to constrain a generator who is prevented from supplying the wattage they'd planned on supplying for that period of time. With the improved models being developed for forecasting wind, this should become less and less over time.
In reply to Jim C:
Good to see you've gone to such a balanced, even-handed source.
> (In reply to Humphrey Jungle)
> [...]
>
> About a thousand tonnes steel and concrete for the anchor only, not counting the roads.
> https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php
> [...]
>
> About a thousand tonnes steel and concrete for the anchor only, not counting the roads.
> https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php
Good to see you've gone to such a balanced, even-handed source.
In reply to Humphrey Jungle:
For a typical onshore turbine the outer bases can be anything up to 20m diameter and up to 1m deep. There is a central plinth on which the actual mast sits of between 4.5 and 6m diameter and between 1 and 2.5m high. The concrete bases are all backfilled so that all that is visible is the top 300mm of the central plinth!
I know more than a little bit about these things. There is almost no standardisation of base design - due to the wide variation in geology and ground bearing pressure. Every job is different -- and that's what's helped the company I work for ride out the recession! We've supplied the base formwork for somewhere in the region of 40 separate projects - and more are in the pipeline.
PS You don't want to know how much concrete will be needed for some of the next generation of 'mega' offshore turbines that will be sited in deep water!
> (In reply to Jim C)
>
> (wonder how much concrete you have to pour per turbine - a lot).
>
> (wonder how much concrete you have to pour per turbine - a lot).
For a typical onshore turbine the outer bases can be anything up to 20m diameter and up to 1m deep. There is a central plinth on which the actual mast sits of between 4.5 and 6m diameter and between 1 and 2.5m high. The concrete bases are all backfilled so that all that is visible is the top 300mm of the central plinth!
I know more than a little bit about these things. There is almost no standardisation of base design - due to the wide variation in geology and ground bearing pressure. Every job is different -- and that's what's helped the company I work for ride out the recession! We've supplied the base formwork for somewhere in the region of 40 separate projects - and more are in the pipeline.
PS You don't want to know how much concrete will be needed for some of the next generation of 'mega' offshore turbines that will be sited in deep water!
In reply to Jim C:
Propose an alternative.
jk
> renewables is a bit like homeopathic remedies, you pay a huge amount for tiny amounts. And it is a costly con.
Propose an alternative.
jk
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I do agree with that, National Grid take "price action" in some cases, but it is quite rare. In general though, oversupply is anticipated by the market and prices fall to the necessary levels that make some producers buy back and turn down, or dis-incentivise other producers to increase production. Most energy companies have 24-hour trading desks that monitor exactly this.
I do agree with that, National Grid take "price action" in some cases, but it is quite rare. In general though, oversupply is anticipated by the market and prices fall to the necessary levels that make some producers buy back and turn down, or dis-incentivise other producers to increase production. Most energy companies have 24-hour trading desks that monitor exactly this.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...