Drax Output to be Reduced after 2027

[Trainbike46]

As I understand it, new growth timber absorbs CO2 faster than mature trees. Properly managed with replanting, there should be a net zero increase in atmospheric CO2 levels in the medium term. Isn't that the whole basis of burning wood?

On top of the point John R makes regarding the climate and biodiversity impacts of using woodlands of high biodiversity value, that they aren't supposed to be using but have been caught using multiple times, there are a lot of ifs hanging on your statement:
- There needs to be replanting and/or natural generation to reabsorb the CO2 - obvious point, but doesn't always happend
- It takes a long time to reabsorb all the CO2 released - raises CO2 levels over the next 50-100 years
- The replanted/regenerated forest needs to actually survive; as young forests are much more susceptible to drought, this isn't a given

Overall, I think it is good that Drax is going to be running a lot less, hopefully as part of a full phaseout of biomass

 

[furnessvale]

On top of the point John R makes regarding the climate and biodiversity impacts of using woodlands of high biodiversity value, that they aren't supposed to be using but have been caught using multiple times, there are a lot of ifs hanging on your statement:
- There needs to be replanting and/or natural generation to reabsorb the CO2 - obvious point, but doesn't always happend
- It takes a long time to reabsorb all the CO2 released - raises CO2 levels over the next 50-100 years
- The replanted/regenerated forest needs to actually survive; as young forests are much more susceptible to drought, this isn't a given

Overall, I think it is good that Drax is going to be running a lot less, hopefully as part of a full phaseout of biomass

Fair enough, as long as the replacement is capable of providing power 24/7, i.e. the only one nuclear.

 

[The Ham]

Fair enough, as long as the replacement is capable of providing power 24/7, i.e. the only one nuclear.

As long as it's spread out along our coastline (so high/low tides don't match up which given that Glasgow was high at 1:00 whilst Newcastle was high at 3:30 and Plymouth was at 5:40 this morning means it should be possible) tidal can also be fairly reliable.

Especially if there's reasonable battery capacity to balance out the troughs.

Also, given that we're mostly concerned about during the winter, hydro (as opposed to pump storage) could also be an option too. Especially if it's from river flow rather than large dams (even though the latter would be more efficient). As whilst it wouldn't be as good during the summer months, solar can generally provide a decent amount (even in the UK).

 

[70014IronDuke]

It's slightly misleading but it works when combined with switching aging power stations to stand by contracts. The price of fuel has increased so much that it's better to duplicate infrastructure costs than rely on fossil fuels.

I deem it more than slightly misleading - it's duping people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm for 'green' energy - but in a trasnparent way.

This way hides the real costs and issues that have to be dealt with.

 

[furnessvale]

As long as it's spread out along our coastline (so high/low tides don't match up which given that Glasgow was high at 1:00 whilst Newcastle was high at 3:30 and Plymouth was at 5:40 this morning means it should be possible) tidal can also be fairly reliable.

Especially if there's reasonable battery capacity to balance out the troughs.

Also, given that we're mostly concerned about during the winter, hydro (as opposed to pump storage) could also be an option too. Especially if it's from river flow rather than large dams (even though the latter would be more efficient). As whilst it wouldn't be as good during the summer months, solar can generally provide a decent amount (even in the UK).

So to round it off, every scheme you propose will require us to build at least double, sometimes more, the actual capacity to allow for all the times that each scheme in turn doesn't actually work.

I think I will stick with nuclear.

I will leave it at that. We are straying well away from railways and I expect a red ink visit imminently!

 

[generalnerd]

i wonder how this will affect freight across the network? Will it free up more potential paths or will it harm the freight industry in general. The issue with freight, at least from what I’ve heard, is struggling as the amount of paths is very low as the network if pushed to its limit with passenger trains.

 

[The Planner]

i wonder how this will affect freight across the network? Will it free up more potential paths or will it harm the freight industry in general. The issue with freight, at least from what I’ve heard, is struggling as the amount of paths is very low as the network if pushed to its limit with passenger trains.

There are an awful lot of unused paths for freight.

 

[Bald Rick]

i wonder how this will affect freight across the network? Will it free up more potential paths or will it harm the freight industry in general.

A not insignificant percntage of freight tonnage on the GB network is in relation to Drax, so the reduction in traffic will harm the industry, more so if it closes in 2031.

All the paths will still be needed for Drax until it closes, or until at least some of the generating units there close, as the logisitics requires the ability to run 20+ trains a day when required.

But even when the paths are released, it won’t be much use, unless there is another traffic generator from Liverpool to Immingham. Which, realsitically, there won’t be in any quantity.

 

[The Ham]

So to round it off, every scheme you propose will require us to build at least double, sometimes more, the actual capacity to allow for all the times that each scheme in turn doesn't actually work.

I think I will stick with nuclear.

I will leave it at that. We are straying well away from railways and I expect a red ink visit imminently!

The cost of new gas projects is around £114/MWh, Nuclear is a little lower but still about £100/MWh.

In comparison Solar is around £41/MWh and wind is up to £45/MWh, so you can afford to build more than twice as much and it not cost more (also it's worth noting that's the prices on the generated power, so probably already accounts for when it's not sunny/windy)

It's also worth noting that it appears to be difficult to deliver new nuclear, as Hinckley Point C is currently 5 years late.

As such, whilst nuclear is certainly going to play a role going forwards ( and for clarity I'm not suggesting sitting nuclear plants early), it's perhaps prudent to prepare for a change in grid mix. Not only reducing dependency on Drax but also planning for nuclear being less of the mix going forwards.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The cost of new gas projects is around £114/MWh, Nuclear is a little lower but still about £100/MWh.

In comparison Solar is around £41/MWh and wind is up to £45/MWh, so you can afford to build more than twice as much and it not cost more (also it's worth noting that's the prices on the generated power, so probably already accounts for when it's not sunny/windy)

It's also worth noting that it appears to be difficult to deliver new nuclear, as Hinckley Point C is currently 5 years late.

As such, whilst nuclear is certainly going to play a role going forwards ( and for clarity I'm not suggesting sitting nuclear plants early), it's perhaps prudent to prepare for a change in grid mix. Not only reducing dependency on Drax but also planning for nuclear being less of the mix going forwards.

I feel there's a lot throughout the UK of what we shouldn't be using to produce power, not a lot of solutions of what we should use. Drax I still think has its place for years to come, certainly until Hinkley point comes online and potentially sizewell c I'd that happens. Less efficient for the rail freight industry though as less consistent flows will cause problems but of course it will be more expensive for Drax to keep trains on standby for when it is operating.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The cost of new gas projects is around £114/MWh, Nuclear is a little lower but still about £100/MWh.

In comparison Solar is around £41/MWh and wind is up to £45/MWh, so you can afford to build more than twice as much and it not cost more (also it's worth noting that's the prices on the generated power, so probably already accounts for when it's not sunny/windy)

You can build as much solar as you like but its no good at night time or for 16hrs a day in mid winter. You need dispatchable power for cold windless winter nights which is why however much the renewables industry and environmentalists wants to shout from the roofs when sun and wind are delivering most of our electricity requirements we will still need to keep 30GW of gas plant available as a back up. That plant is going to cost a lot of money to ensure it stays available. You can see this already where T-4 capacity market for 27/28 delivery year which required a price of £65k/MW a new record. This will cost consumers £3.6B in that year and thats before they auction for the T-1 top up. Gas stations gained 67% of the required output and to be clear solar and wind can't compete in this auction as its not dispatchable on demand which is the requirement.

The price has been going up every year as the gas station operators are working out that as there running hours are going down they need other sources of income to keep them open. The T-4 auction for 28/29 delivery will be run next month and its expected that will clear at above £70k/MW as by then we will have considerable more wind and solar connected further pushing gas out to the margin. Personally i see Drax is going to be used a lot more than they anticipate or for political reasons want as the other variable here is gas price which has whilst not at silly prices of 2022 its still much higher than pre Ukraine as Europe is now having to pull LNG in to make up for loss of Russian supplies. The other variable here often overlooked is carbon tax that is levied on using gas in power stations in the govt are forcing this up as part of their drive to reduce our CO2 emissions. So if both continue at their elevated prices that will make Drax more cost effective.

 

[imagination]

You can build as much solar as you like but its no good at night time or for 16hrs a day in mid winter. You need dispatchable power for cold windless winter nights which is why however much the renewables industry and environmentalists wants to shout from the roofs when sun and wind are delivering most of our electricity requirements we will still need to keep 30GW of gas plant available as a back up.

Or storage capacity. The government currently plans for the grid to have about 30GW of that by 2030.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Or storage capacity. The government currently plans for the grid to have about 30GW of that by 2030.

Gas runs continuously batteries run out.

Currently UK at end 2024 has c4.7GW battery capacity which can deliver 6.6GWh - for comparison we used 880GWh yesterday! Anyhow there is a good battery pipeline but 30GW is going to be a stretch at the current build out rate and even if they are all 2hr capacity thats only 60GWh. Also there primary role is system stability and absorbing excess renewable generation, which depresses prices, so it can be charged cheaply and then sold back in the peak. Thus its not going to be wholesale substitute for gas anytime soon.

 

[Bald Rick]

Gas runs continuously batteries run out.

Currently UK at end 2024 has c4.7GW battery capacity which can deliver 6.6GWh - for comparison we used 880GWh yesterday! Anyhow there is a good battery pipeline but 30GW is going to be a stretch at the current build out rate and even if they are all 2hr capacity thats only 60GWh. Also there primary role is system stability and absorbing excess renewable generation, which depresses prices, so it can be charged cheaply and then sold back in the peak. Thus its not going to be wholesale substitute for gas anytime soon.

All fair points, but we do have 18GWh of Grid side battery capacity under construction, with another 100GWh approved (ie planning consented), which could be reasonably expected to come on line in the next 2-3 years, plus a lot more in the development process.

Add in domestic / commercial premises battery installations, Vehicle to Grid, demand shift etc. and the numbers start to add up. I’m not for one moment suggesting that gas plant will all be unnecessary any time soon, but it’s reasonable to assume that the least efficient plants will start signing off by the end of the decade.

 

[TPO]

You can build as much solar as you like but its no good at night time or for 16hrs a day in mid winter. You need dispatchable power for cold windless winter nights which is why however much the renewables industry and environmentalists wants to shout from the roofs when sun and wind are delivering most of our electricity requirements we will still need to keep 30GW of gas plant available as a back up. That plant is going to cost a lot of money to ensure it stays available. You can see this already where T-4 capacity market for 27/28 delivery year which required a price of £65k/MW a new record. This will cost consumers £3.6B in that year and thats before they auction for the T-1 top up. Gas stations gained 67% of the required output and to be clear solar and wind can't compete in this auction as its not dispatchable on demand which is the requirement.

The price has been going up every year as the gas station operators are working out that as there running hours are going down they need other sources of income to keep them open. The T-4 auction for 28/29 delivery will be run next month and its expected that will clear at above £70k/MW as by then we will have considerable more wind and solar connected further pushing gas out to the margin. Personally i see Drax is going to be used a lot more than they anticipate or for political reasons want as the other variable here is gas price which has whilst not at silly prices of 2022 its still much higher than pre Ukraine as Europe is now having to pull LNG in to make up for loss of Russian supplies. The other variable here often overlooked is carbon tax that is levied on using gas in power stations in the govt are forcing this up as part of their drive to reduce our CO2 emissions. So if both continue at their elevated prices that will make Drax more cost effective.

We should put all of the folks who want only 'green' energy on fully interruptable connections, Ed Miliband included.

They can be switched off to remove demand on the grid when we have what the Germans call 'Dunkelflauten' weather in winter I.e.calm and grey. I expect it would be a highly educational experience.

This has been brewing for years, too much dogma and too little consideration of what is actually possible and effective. Just like the railway really, doesn’t feel like politicians of any party understand the importance of a robust and resilient national infrastructure......

TPO

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

All fair points, but we do have 18GWh of Grid side battery capacity under construction, with another 100GWh approved (ie planning consented), which could be reasonably expected to come on line in the next 2-3 years, plus a lot more in the development process.

Add in domestic / commercial premises battery installations, Vehicle to Grid, demand shift etc. and the numbers start to add up. I’m not for one moment suggesting that gas plant will all be unnecessary any time soon, but it’s reasonable to assume that the least efficient plants will start signing off by the end of the decade.

Batteries certainly have an increasing role to play in the grid and prices are getting competitive and potentially more with Trump rolling back on renewables could see Chinese having even more product to shift. NESO are also going to favour BESS in the connections reform process to speed up their grid connections. Ultimately though they still need power to charge them in the first place and given there inherent inefficiency between charge/recharge it doesn't make sense using gas to charge them.

As an aside why we haven't embraced them on our railways by now is beyond me anyhow for another thread

 

[Richard123]

May I draw your attension to the following;

Two power station owners to get more than £12m for three hours of electricity

Uniper and a subsidiary of Vitol able to charge 50 times recent market price to ensure supply during evening peak

www.theguardian.com

Seems on 8 January 2025, 2 x CCGT power plants held the National Grid to ransom..... !!

Basically no wind = no grid unless National Grid stump up £12m for 3 hours. Talk about the Green agenda !!

That's pretty selective numbers. Across the year, total cost to maintain adequate margin (neither nuclear nor gas achieve 100% availability either), our electricity is much cheaper than it would otherwise be due to the renewable transition.

If you want to cherry you can pick three hours of high price or three hours of negative price. It's the way the market works. But the clever people who do the sums can calculate the total cost of different mixes and we should be very, very grateful for the renewables on the grid over recent years.

Had David Cameron not "cut the green crap" we would have seen far less price increase following Brexit and the conflict in Ukraine (both of which affected cost of fossil fuels).

 

[Bald Rick]

Ultimately though they still need power to charge them in the first place and given there inherent inefficiency between charge/recharge it doesn't make sense using gas to charge them.

There are some gas stations proposed with BESS alongside; the new one at Eggboro’ for example. I think it’s odd too!

As an aside why we haven't embraced them on our railways by now is beyond me anyhow for another thread

Well, there has been much resistance (pun intended) from the engineering community, for reasons I have never been able to fathom.

However it has arrived - Liverpool and the Valleys - and I think it is quite likely that every class of EMU built from now on will have some form of traction battery. As a minimum, a ‘get you to the next station’ facility of 10/20 miles or so, which need only be the size of battery you get in a Hyundai. In terms of additional weight and cost it will be lost in the roundings.

I will say I am personally disappointed how long it has taken to get battery technology into rail applications; I have been boring people senseless on the subject on these pages for nearly a decade.

 

[Class 317]

Or storage capacity. The government currently plans for the grid to have about 30GW of that by 2030.

30gw capacity to supply to the grid. This is not 30GWH's capacity which is quite different..the Grid struggles with peaks mainly t the moment and batteries will help massively here.

Also don't forget that Solar and Wind will be stored from daytime for night time use.

Also it's the total amortised cost of electricity that matters and this will be affected by both very cheap renewables and very expensive back up generators. Depending on how much of each this will affect the actual price paid by consumers.

In terms of train paths I'd expect these to disappear come 2031 as the investment required to keep Drax going will be unaffordable based on it's usage.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Time to invest in a diesel generator I think!! But in all seriousness the use of electricity is only going to increase and there doesn't seem to be a strategy to meet demand. The plan for Drax on standby might be less standby and more productive than anticipated as time goes on. On this forum for example, we're pro railway electrification like the Midland mainline, power has to be produced somewhere consistently. The mix of production has its place, interconnectors are some of the solution especially the one to Morocco that's proposed as solar from the desert makes sense. Fossil fuels will be part of the mix as well, probably for a long time to come.

 

[The Ham]

We should put all of the folks who want only 'green' energy on fully interruptable connections, Ed Miliband included.

They can be switched off to remove demand on the grid when we have what the Germans call 'Dunkelflauten' weather in winter I.e.calm and grey. I expect it would be a highly educational experience.

This has been brewing for years, too much dogma and too little consideration of what is actually possible and effective. Just like the railway really, doesn’t feel like politicians of any party understand the importance of a robust and resilient national infrastructure......

TPO

Part of the issue of this thinking is that some (and I'm not necessarily saying you're doing this) are only looking at what we have currently.

No one in the 100% green goal side of the argument is saying that gas should be turned off tomorrow. However, it has already been shown that we can switch off coal power generation whilst at the same time reduce gas power production whilst at the same time increase electric car use, whilst at the same time reduced energy use back to the level of about 1980 (when the population was smaller).

It's why those saying things like "the history of energy shows that we keep the old energy types and always use more energy" may actually be wrong when it comes to renewables.

I've also highlighted that we'd need other energy sources, such as hydro and tidal, so wouldn't need to be reliant on only wind and solar. Whilst such aren't going to be a significant percentage of the grid mix, they could deliver what's needed to keep the power on.

As to your challenge of being in a tariff which cuts me off at times when there's too much demand, today, no, but in 10 years time probably and probably in 15 years time is be more accepting of being on it. However that's the point, the grid in 10 years to 15 years time is going to need far less gas than we currently need, even though we will be seeing electricity use rising due to EV's and electric heating.

 

[mac]

Would we be better keeping Drax and our gas power stations until we can stop relying on imported electricity

 

[Class 317]

Would we be better keeping Drax and our gas power stations until we can stop relying on imported electricity

I'd say no as being interconnected makes the grid more resilient and also builds resilience against unexpected shocks.

 

[Trainbike46]

What some people in this thread appear to have missed, is that reliability of the UK electricity grid has increased, not decreased.

Moving Drax, a relatively expensive generator, from near-baseload generation to a back-up role, makes both financial and environmental sense.

High prices in recent times have entirely been driven by gas power plants, so needing less of them will overall reduce costs. Electricity storage solutions (pumped hydro, batteries, etc.), more renewables (solar, wind, hydro), and new nuclear* will help achieve that.

Would we be better keeping Drax and our gas power stations until we can stop relying on imported electricity

I guess it depends, do you believe Qatar and the USA are more reliable than France, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands?

The gas and biomass used to run those power stations is imported from the first two, electricity from the latter ones. In either case, the UK is reliant on imports, personally, I have more faith in our European neighbors. If you want to avoid or reduce imports, more renewables, storage, and new nuclear is the answer. On top of that, interconnections increase resilience and grid reliability, so are a good thing.

*Hinkley point C is progressing with construction. Hopefully Sizewell C will be fully approved and start construction soon.

 

[furnessvale]

I'd say no as being interconnected makes the grid more resilient and also builds resilience against unexpected shocks.

Apart from the fact that Russian and Chinese ships are "accidentally" dragging anchors for miles disrupting cables, it is madness to put yourself in a position of relying on foreign countries unnecessarily. When push comes to shove, if anything goes wrong they will not be sending juice to the UK if it means blackouts at home.

I believe last month on a couple of occasions the UK was one major outage of a French nuclear station away from major blackouts.

 

[Trainbike46]

Apart from the fact that Russian and Chinese ships are "accidentally" dragging anchors for miles disrupting cables, it is madness to put yourself in a position of relying on foreign countries unnecessarily. When push comes to shove, if anything goes wrong they will not be sending juice to the UK if it means blackouts at home.

You think undersea gas pipes, or ship deliveries of LNG or biomass are immune to sabotage and accidental disruption then?

I believe last month on a couple of occasions the UK was one major outage of a French nuclear station away from major blackouts.

Is that so? Could you provide a source for that claim, because it seems highly unlikely to me.

 

[The Ham]

I'd say no as being interconnected makes the grid more resilient and also builds resilience against unexpected shocks.

Indeed, it also provides us with a market for excess energy, which then aids others with their grid's resilience.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed, it also provides us with a market for excess energy, which then aids others with their grid's resilience.

Interconnections work both ways.
While the main flow is GB-wards, power regularly flows towards FR/BE/NL/DK/NO, and there was a spell when France imported power when they had maintenance problems with their nuclear fleet.
More locally, GB exports up to 1GW continuously to the Ireland grid (north and south).
At times you can see the power flows in effect from (eg) Norway to Ireland via GB.

Getlink (Eurotunnel) recently said its revenues would be down €20m because of the recent 4-month outage of the 1GW Eleclink cable through the tunnel.

 

[seaviewer]

"If you want to avoid or reduce imports, more renewables, storage, and new nuclear is the answer."
(post 54)
Er.........Not sure about nuclear. Electricity from Hinkley point will cost around £130/MWh and don't think anyone knows what it will cost from Sizewell.

 

[Trainbike46]

"If you want to avoid or reduce imports, more renewables, storage, and new nuclear is the answer."
(post 54)
Er.........Not sure about nuclear. Electricity from Hinkley point will cost around £130/MWh and don't think anyone knows what it will cost from Sizewell.

Nuclear has cost issues, but it relies less on continuing imports than either gas or biomass, as there is no need for a constant stream of new fuel.