Drax Output to be Reduced after 2027

[takno]

Here’s some news - it does happen, and has done for a while.

One example: Norway put in place supply restrictions on some mornings last winter (and I bet it has done so this winter), yet still sent us 1.4GW. There were even news articles about it

But bear in mind that supply restrictions is not the same as “power cuts”; we are a long, long way from power cuts.

Worth bearing in mind that the governing coalition in Norway recently broke up over energy price controls and implementing EU policy on them. It's also been seen as a key policy differentiator for the right-wing opposition parties, so it's difficult to claim it's all plain sailing.

It is completely normal to be on a highly variable tariff there though, and people still seem to be able to both stay warm and keep their cars charged.

 

[Falcon1200]

But bear in mind that supply restrictions is not the same as “power cuts”

While it is obvious what a power cut means to the consumer, what is the effect of supply restrictions, please?

 

[Richard123]

I'm not ot sure that the interconnectors are really understood. They are there to balance the demand and supply across Europe at lowest cost. That does not mean we are reliant on them to prevent power cuts. Having more of them reduces the cost of moving to a greener grid but does not make it more vulnerable. The reason being that it's unlikely the whole of the European grid will not have some spare capacity even during a cold snap as it's such a large grid in total with a very good mix of renewables and nuclear options.

During the recent cold spell where 2 gas power stations were called upon for 3 hours and could charge £12m it's been widely reported as we were so close to a power cut but this is wrong. We still had options to switch on additional gas power stations, back up diesel generators as users signed up to offer them to the grid as a demand balancing option as well as various other demand side measures. The cost of these measures would have been high but the general cost of renewable electricity is so low it's balanced in the amortized cost.

Going back to Drax train I would expect trains run to half or so from 2027.

Absolutely right. And on a continental scale, weather varies. Don't expect the Daily Mail or Telegraph yo see the bigger picture.

 

[102 fan]

How is it better for the environment to use wood from USA that has to be transported by a diesel powered ship across the Atlantic?

 

[Killingworth]

How is it better for the environment to use wood from USA that has to be transported by a diesel powered ship across the Atlantic?

It isn't?

 

[Bald Rick]

While it is obvious what a power cut means to the consumer, what is the effect of supply restrictions, please?

It means that some non domestic users commit to reducing their power draw at the peak times. One small example - some Hotels in London will take a proportion of their room’s aircon / heating off line progressively for (say) 20 minutes or so, meaning their overlal powerdraw might reduce by 0.5MW. A drop in the ocean, but if 2000 similar properties do that around the country, that’s a GW. Some of the big industrial power users will happily stop production for a couple of hours (if asked) if that means they get a year round discount.

And then we come to demand shifting at home, as per the trials last year. That can easily shift 2-3GW.

 

[Class 170101]

And then we come to demand shifting at home, as per the trials last year. That can easily shift 2-3GW.

Whilst 'Every Little Helps' and all that, that figure doesn't seem a lot.

Nuclear doesn't hold all the answers for me. If it can go bang in Japan it can go wrong anywhere.

The other question I have is, as I understand it, wind farms are at times paid to switch off. So can a battery/ies be located out at sea on base / sub stations and then feed into the grid using the same connections the turbines use to feed into the grid when it is windy?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Gas runs continuously -

- if you've got the gas.

Yup but batteries need energy to be charged in the first place and most don't have more than 2hrs capacity and remain a drop in the ocean compared to energy available from gas storage (10 TWh in the UK with full storage).

And it creates environmental damage.

Yes but with China burning through 5 Billion Tonnes last year when UK at its absolutely worst case never got through more than 300M Tonnes whatever we do now isn't going to materially help the globe until China is making a serious downward trend into this. Thats not to say we shouldn't keep moving in a downward direction but Ed Milibands push towards to 2030 is too fast. A more relaxed target should be followed and one that ensure maximum benefit to UK jobs not overseas manufacturers that the current rush will require as our renewables manufacturing base is very poor currently.

As I see it every kWh from solar or wind is a kWh of gas saved.

Don't disagree and that happens whenever renewables are available which is why our gas use for electricity generation is already down over 30% from its peak (upto 2023) and has fallen further since then.

 

[jfowkes]

Nuclear doesn't hold all the answers for me. If it can go bang in Japan it can go wrong anywhere.

The thing is it didn't go bang in Japan. If anything , Fukushima proved just how safe nuclear power is. A really old reactor proved remarkably resilient to a major earthquake, there were more deaths and injuries as a result of the evacuation than the actual incident itself.
The deaths and injuries from fossil fuel energy generation, and indeed from renewables, don't get the attention because they tend to be spread out over time and population, but they are both far more harmful than nuclear.

 

[102 fan]

It isn't?

Why do it then?

 

[Class 170101]

The thing is it didn't go bang in Japan. If anything , Fukushima proved just how safe nuclear power is. A really old reactor proved remarkably resilient to a major earthquake, there were more deaths and injuries as a result of the evacuation than the actual incident itself.
The deaths and injuries from fossil fuel energy generation, and indeed from renewables, don't get the attention because they tend to be spread out over time and population, but they are both far more harmful than nuclear.

Ok then explain the exclusion zone around the site. If Hinkley goes you can forget Bristol and probably Cardiff. If Sizewell goes you can forget parts of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk potentially. If a Bradwell B was built and that went bang you can forget London.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The thing is it didn't go bang in Japan. If anything , Fukushima proved just how safe nuclear power is. A really old reactor proved remarkably resilient to a major earthquake, there were more deaths and injuries as a result of the evacuation than the actual incident itself.
The deaths and injuries from fossil fuel energy generation, and indeed from renewables, don't get the attention because they tend to be spread out over time and population, but they are both far more harmful than nuclear.

It had several hydrogen explosions actually and had several reactors damaged compared to the one at Chernobyl but they have biological shields to contain most of the radiation that Chernobyl lacked. They have also battled for over a decade to attempt to stop radiation getting into the ground water by keeping the ground frozen all round the affected reactors. The Japanese had put in place extreme measures to contain against the seismic impact of an earthquake and even the tsunami defences were enormous but they didn't factor in the ground level dropping 0.6m as well and the water overwhelmed the reactors emergency backup generators and batteries.

 

[Bald Rick]

The other question I have is, as I understand it, wind farms are at times paid to switch off. So can a battery/ies be located out at sea on base / sub stations and then feed into the grid using the same connections the turbines use to feed into the grid when it is windy?

Yes, but there would be no point locating the batteries out at sea.

They can be (and some are being) located at the onshore substation where it is much easier, and therefore chepaer, to build. That’s the beuty of electricity, it is relatively easy to transport to where it’s needed.

However the power that wind farms can generate is enormous - right now Hornsea 1&2 are pumping out nearly 2.5GW between them, and they would fill the entire country’s grid connected battery storage by midnight. What we need - and are getting - is a lot more batteries and other storage (eg pumped storage), and more interconnectors to be a le to export energy to places that need it and/or effectively use their hydro as our storage. But it will take another few decade or so before we have enough storage, interconnectors, grid capacity and pricing mechanisms that mean we don’t curtail wind output except in extreme circumstances.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes, but there would be no point locating the batteries out at sea.

I was only thinking in terms of locating them on existing structures, if there are any, which some sites suggest there might be simply as it would get around placating the NIMBYS.

They can be (and some are being) located at the onshore substation where it is much easier, and therefore chepaer, to build. That’s the beuty of electricity, it is relatively easy to transport to where it’s needed.

Assuming of course the Grid is there to support it but thats another discussion altogether (ref Norwich to Tilbury 400kv network).

 

[Bald Rick]

I was only thinking in terms of locating them on existing structures, if there are any, which some sites suggest there might be simply as it would get around placating the NIMBYS.


Assuming of course the Grid is there to support it but thats another discussion altogether (ref Norwich to Tilbury 400kv network).

In the case of offshore wind, having batteries at the shore converter station or grid connection automatically means the grid is there to suport it

 

[jfowkes]

Ok then explain the exclusion zone around the site

It had several hydrogen explosions actually and had several reactors damaged compared to the one at Chernobyl but they have biological shields to contain most of the radiation that Chernobyl lacked. They have also battled for over a decade to attempt to stop radiation getting into the ground water by keeping the ground frozen all round the affected reactors. The Japanese had put in place extreme measures to contain against the seismic impact of an earthquake and even the tsunami defences were enormous but they didn't factor in the ground level dropping 0.6m as well and the water overwhelmed the reactors emergency backup generators and batteries.

I'm not saying nothing happened at Fukushima or that the incident wasn't serious, in nuclear energy terms. Just that the data shows that even taking into account Fukushima along with all other nuclear incidents, nuclear power is very, very, very safe.

In the same way that commercial aviation is very, very, very safe. Because each time there's an incident, fleets might get grounded, or production might be stopped, or whatever, and there's a massive media storm. But all these things are explained the same root cause: the industry in general had a very very good safety culture.

People are scared of flying but not of driving, despite the statistics.
People are scared of nuclear power but not of gas, despite the statistics.
This is my central point.

I would sooner live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal fired power station. I'd get less radiation exposure for one thing.

(mods I am sorry for the completely irrelevant posts, feel free to delete all this, I can get quite animated about nuclear power)

 

[Krokodil]

Ok then explain the exclusion zone around the site. If Hinkley goes you can forget Bristol and probably Cardiff. If Sizewell goes you can forget parts of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk potentially. If a Bradwell B was built and that went bang you can forget London.

How often do we get magnitude 9 earthquakes in the UK?

 

[Richard123]

Yup but batteries need energy to be charged in the first place and most don't have more than 2hrs capacity and remain a drop in the ocean compared to energy available from gas storage (10 TWh in the UK with full storage).

Yes but with China burning through 5 Billion Tonnes last year when UK at its absolutely worst case never got through more than 300M Tonnes whatever we do now isn't going to materially help the globe until China is making a serious downward trend into this. Thats not to say we shouldn't keep moving in a downward direction but Ed Milibands push towards to 2030 is too fast. A more relaxed target should be followed and one that ensure maximum benefit to UK jobs not overseas manufacturers that the current rush will require as our renewables manufacturing base is very poor currently.

Don't disagree and that happens whenever renewables are available which is why our gas use for electricity generation is already down over 30% from its peak (upto 2023) and has fallen further since then.

That is a terrible argument. We industrialised and built out infrastructure a century ago to lift people out of poverty, and have enormous cumulative emissions.

We are still polluting vastly more per capita each year than the global average.

China, a country of over a billion people, is moving from subsistence to industrialised living while simultaneously transitioning to clean energy; it's oil consumption and coal consumption likely peaked last year.

If everyone searches for excuses to do nothing "we won't do anything because a country with 15 times our population emits more" the earth is doomed. Unfortunately there is a very well funded, professional campaign pushing this delay tactic and they have the POTUS on their payroll, among various other far-right politicians here and abroad.

 

[xotGD]

How is it better for the environment to use wood from USA that has to be transported by a diesel powered ship across the Atlantic?

By importing biomass from the USA, we can pretend that the CO2 emissions occur over there, when the trees are felled, rather than emanating from the chimney stack at Drax (or Lynemouth) when the wood pellets are burnt. Those are the rules for carbon accounting.

As for the biomass being net zero, as the forests are replanted, well yes, over the 50 years it takes the new trees to absorb the equivalent CO2 released by burning the pellets. But in the meantime all that CO2 is in the atmosphere, wrecking the climate just the same as CO2 released from burning fossil fuels.

 

[JamesT]

That is a terrible argument. We industrialised and built out infrastructure a century ago to lift people out of poverty, and have enormous cumulative emissions.

We are still polluting vastly more per capita each year than the global average.

China, a country of over a billion people, is moving from subsistence to industrialised living while simultaneously transitioning to clean energy; it's oil consumption and coal consumption likely peaked last year.

If everyone searches for excuses to do nothing "we won't do anything because a country with 15 times our population emits more" the earth is doomed. Unfortunately there is a very well funded, professional campaign pushing this delay tactic and they have the POTUS on their payroll, among various other far-right politicians here and abroad.

The climate doesn’t care about pollution per capita, only total emissions matter.

Yes, we industrialised with coal because that was available at the time. Countries making the transition now have a choice to do it in a clean way.

A quick google suggests China might hit peak coal this year, but there are many articles claiming previous years would be the peak and it wasn’t.

It’s not that we shouldn’t do anything, but that most of what we do is fiddling round the edges when China is building more new coal plants than the entire output of the UK. We have been decarbonising fairly successfully for the last few decades, but are other countries following our lead, or just taking advantage of cheap and dirty methods we won’t use any more?

 

[birchesgreen]

How is it better for the environment to use wood from USA that has to be transported by a diesel powered ship across the Atlantic?

Well it is marginally better than burning coal but thats all. Its as green as an old BR diesel thats been dumped in a siding for 40 years.

 

[Falcon1200]

It means that some non domestic users commit to reducing their power draw at the peak times.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst 'Every Little Helps' and all that, that figure doesn't seem a lot.

2-3 GW is plenty, as it shifts the need to engage the most expensive peak suppliers and silly pounds / MWh. As ever, it is the last generator that drives the market price*, so this demand shift is very significant on average day ahead prices.

*In simple terms. Very much more complicated in reality.

 

[dangie]

Deleted - Wrong Thread

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

2-3 GW is plenty, as it shifts the need to engage the most expensive peak suppliers and silly pounds / MWh. As ever, it is the last generator that drives the market price*, so this demand shift is very significant on average day ahead prices.

*In simple terms. Very much more complicated in reality.

Yes day ahead and NESO actions each half hour are driven by most expensive generator but over 60% of electricity is sold in the forward market at prices agreed between generator and supplier or energy trader. The problem is those prices are commercially sensitive unlike the day ahead and balancing prices which are visible to all. Media latch onto the latter without giving a full explanation. They also finger point at renewables but majority of them sell forward using power purchase agreements to lock in certainty as despite the other myth about subsidies they actually have to find someone to buy the power in the first place because they only get the subsidies on what they generate.

As you say its a lot more complicated.

As an aside i see a 100MW 331MWh battery has been commissioned this week making it the longest duration above 100MW in the UK.

 

[aar0]

they didn't factor in the ground level dropping 0.6m as well and the water overwhelmed the reactors emergency backup generators and batteries.

When building the reactor they actually lowered the ground level (from memory) 25 metres, had they not done so it wouldn’t have even got wet. Hindsight eh?

 

[Bald Rick]

As an aside i see a 100MW 331MWh battery has been commissioned this week making it the longest duration above 100MW in the UK.

Yep, and plenty more where that came from by the same suppliers with a 350MW / 1.75GWh facility under construction at Hams Hall. That one alone will make a noticeable difference at peak times.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yep, and plenty more where that came from by the same suppliers with a 350MW / 1.75GWh facility under construction at Hams Hall. That one alone will make a noticeable difference at peak times.

Also the connections reform programme will now favour energy storage over all other forms of generation irrespective of when they applied which will bump up delivery if the developers have the cask and kit to get them built.

 

[Ediswan]

Yep, and plenty more where that came from by the same suppliers with a 350MW / 1.75GWh facility under construction at Hams Hall. That one alone will make a noticeable difference at peak times.

Are these large installations able to provide 'synthetic inertia' in place of a physical spinning reserve ? Just curious. Very useful even if they take a bit longer to come online.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are these large installations able to provide 'synthetic inertia' in place of a physical spinning reserve ? Just curious. Very useful even if they take a bit longer to come online.

Yes, they can be (and some are) set to switch in immediately if frequency drops below a certain level, or conversely switch to ‘charge’ if frequency goes above a certain level, albeit that’s rarer AIUI.

Further deployment of BESS (battery energy storage systems) is one of the reasons we have been able to get out of coal, and will have less need for Drax, and now we’re back on topic (phew!)