GRALISTAIR
Established Member
A huge tidal project for Scotland is also planned isnt it?
Government appears to be holding back the tidal sector which could generate about 9% of the country’s requirements from a Severn barrage which could be balanced by several smaller schemes around the Irish Sea. Before anyone says that generation would stop at slack water (or any other tidal state) the tides around the Irish Sea are out of phase with those at a Severn barrage so could generate pretty much constantly.
I did yes.Do you mean the tidal flow scheme in the Pentland Firth?
InterestingThe Pentland Firth might be interesting for Dynamic Tidal power but otherwise tidal stream is not going to generate a significant amount of power.
Or as tonight help us out of a generation shortfall with all i/c's on import as wind is low and DRAX has two units off line so we are paying a premium for that EU power yet when we have a surplus of wind generation we pay the owners to switch them off. So we get little offset to imported costs and we double down by paying out constraint payments.
The simple fact is the cross channel i/c's are leveraged to import as we have a generation deficit in the SE in the winter months and IFA2 will just give EU more opportunity to bid in cheap electricity.
When the North Sea Link is commissioned there ought to be an opportunity to reduce constraint payments as the grid can facilitate excess export power in the NE so hopefully Norway will see the benefit of preserving its hydro resources by taking cheap wind power when its on offer.
Concerning, when the 'continentals' also replace their generating capability with similar renewable sources.
Meanwhile as coal is finally removed from the landscape and Gas becomes marginalised one can only conclude based on the evidence of the market that the wild spikes in energy costs could well become even more extreme than now. But of course we'll have 'new Nuclear' to fall back on?
One wonders what the future additional electricity demand from mass EV road, domestic energy and other industrial / transport electrification will do to increase what already looks like a perilous gap when the renewables can't contribute?
Government appears to be holding back the tidal sector
That rather assumes that all those vehicles are connected to the grid. Most people even if they have 1 charger per car will only connect the leads to meet their expected demand. So the car will for the shop run will only be connected say once a week.As more people get electric cars, the spike will be lower. Especially with smar metering and storage. Within 4 years, on current trends, there will be aound 100GWh of energy capacity sat outside people’s homes overnight, and a significant minority of them won’t move that often. That will certainly help fill the ‘troughs’, and potentially lop the top off the peaks. By 2035 there will be 2-3 TWh, which around a week’s worth of fossil fuel generation in this country in a cold-ish spell with low wind. (This is all very approximate with loads of assumptions, but it does show how battery storage is part of the answer).
That rather assumes that all those vehicles are connected to the grid. Most people even if they have 1 charger per car will only connect the leads to meet their expected demand. So the car will for the shop run will only be connected say once a week.
That rather assumes that all those vehicles are connected to the grid. Most people even if they have 1 charger per car will only connect the leads to meet their expected demand. So the car will for the shop run will only be connected say once a week.
Most public car charging is of the fast type charger so the car will only be connected to the grid for a very limited time.
Whilst there may be a marginal benefit Im afraid that I think that EVs providing back up to renewable generation is largely pie in the sky.
Most people even if they have 1 charger per car will only connect the leads to meet their expected demand. So the car will for the shop run will only be connected say once a week.
Also it will only a person one instance of finding their car battery flat when they need it for them to opt out of any such scheme.
It might work if it was pitched at the level early solar powered roof installations received but balancing the system would become a nightmare and it would need a lot more rapid response generation available which im not sure will be that cost effective or practical. So is now the time to re-evaluate what tolerances the grid planners have to work to on maintaining frequency and voltage levels as well as perhaps decreasing the level of reliability expected.They will if they’re paid to do it. Money for nothing. Could be worth several hundred pounds a year. I’ll certainly do it.
That rather assumes that all those vehicles are connected to the grid. Most people even if they have 1 charger per car will only connect the leads to meet their expected demand. So the car will for the shop run will only be connected say once a week.
Most public car charging is of the fast type charger so the car will only be connected to the grid for a very limited time.
Whilst there may be a marginal benefit Im afraid that I think that EVs providing back up to renewable generation is largely pie in the sky.
Yes I've heard that argument which has always puzzled me for these reasons; the majority of EV cars sat outside overnight will mostly coincide with periods of low electricity demand so I fail to see what useful contribution EV's would be making to the grid. Baseload generators and other significant (yes even wind) will support low period demand assuming a typical 9-5 working. Paradoxically when they're first connected up for charge on arrival home and likely to require charging they'll either have limited chargeAs more people get electric cars, the spike will be lower. Especially with smar metering and storage. Within 4 years, on current trends, there will be aound 100GWh of energy capacity sat outside people’s homes overnight, and a significant minority of them won’t move that often. That will certainly help fill the ‘troughs’, and potentially lop the top off the peaks. By 2035 there will be 2-3 TWh, which around a week’s worth of fossil fuel generation in this country in a cold-ish spell with low wind. (This is all very approximate with loads of assumptions, but it does show how battery storage is part of the answer).
For good reason!
Yes I've heard that argument which has always puzzled me for these reasons; the majority of EV cars sat outside overnight will mostly coincide with periods of low electricity demand so I fail to see what useful contribution EV's would be making to the grid. Baseload generators and other significant (yes even wind) will support low period demand assuming a typical 9-5 working. Paradoxically when they're first connected up for charge on arrival home and likely to require charging they'll either have limited charge
remaining which cannot be used to support demand, be a net drain on the network as they charge or be 'disconnected' waiting for the low (smart) demand period. For EV's with adequate charge remaining why would the user connect up anyway?
Maybe I just don't get it?
Regarding industrial scale battery storage supporting the network. Yes I agree theoretically these may have a role. My observation here is they would presumably be there to support peak demand - the expensive sector of the market, should other available generation capability be unable to perform. If that is the case the price charged to the consumer will be the premium end of the spectrum as a niche supply - much like today's OCGT. One wonders whether there's a sufficient economic case for such provision both from the investor and the consumers standpoint. For the former it's only likely if income is guaranteed by contract irrespective of use. For the latter it suggests another expensive element of the supply sector pulling subsidy from our pockets. Wind has been around for some time now. The bills haven't dropped despite the promises of Manyana.
Yes I've heard that argument which has always puzzled me for these reasons; the majority of EV cars sat outside overnight will mostly coincide with periods of low electricity demand so I fail to see what useful contribution EV's would be making to the grid. Baseload generators and other significant (yes even wind) will support low period demand assuming a typical 9-5 working. Paradoxically when they're first connected up for charge on arrival home and likely to require charging they'll either have limited charge
remaining which cannot be used to support demand, be a net drain on the network as they charge or be 'disconnected' waiting for the low (smart) demand period. For EV's with adequate charge remaining why would the user connect up anyway?
Maybe I just don't get it?
Regarding industrial scale battery storage supporting the network. Yes I agree theoretically these may have a role. My observation here is they would presumably be there to support peak demand - the expensive sector of the market, should other available generation capability be unable to perform. If that is the case the price charged to the consumer will be the premium end of the spectrum as a niche supply - much like today's OCGT. One wonders whether there's a sufficient economic case for such provision both from the investor and the consumers standpoint. For the former it's only likely if income is guaranteed by contract irrespective of use. For the latter it suggests another expensive element of the supply sector pulling subsidy from our pockets. Wind has been around for some time now. The bills haven't dropped despite the promises of Manyana.
The best thing I can think of for car cahrging is a tarrif using a smart charger, where the electricity company commits to offering a certain number of kWh to the charger during a set period (say midnight to 7am or whatever) as long as the car is plugged in continuously, but does not guarantee delivery of that power in any specific manner.
Even someone doing 10 miles each way for work would only need a car with a range of 120-150 miles to only need to charge it once a week.
Given that is the average commute distance in the UK the majority of people would probably only need a single charge each week, especially given that many cars are going to have higher ranges than that.
WFH would likely impact on car usage, meaning even more would fall into the 1 charge per week group. However they charge could be during daylight hours, and so unless it's raining it's able to charge up off peak.
Possibly. On the other hand, it could increase the uptake in the medium term. I've had my car about 6 years and might be looking around for a good deal on a second hand car like you suggest. But I'm putting it off at the moment because I'm not using it much, I don't know how much I'll use it in the future, and I know that the choice of electric cars will be vastly improved in the near future. Why buy an ICE car now when I can wait and get an affordable 2nd hand electric car in a couple of years' time?Paradoxically, WFH and reduced commuting may actually *slow* the uptake of electric cars. If people aren't doing the mileage they may be less concerned about replacing their car.
I'm in the interesting position that my company car is due replacement later this year, the scheme has now been completely biased towards getting an electric car - which I don't want for several reasons - so I'm seriously looking at opting out and buying my own car because my mileage is going to be reduced and TBH there are some incredibly good deals on 2-3 year old cars with 20k miles on. If I bought one of those and looked after it, I could easily get 10 years / 100k miles out of it.
Isn't the idea that EV cars would charge overnight and then discharge in the morning and evening peaks, which for obvious reasons are just before and just after the commute.Yes I've heard that argument which has always puzzled me for these reasons; the majority of EV cars sat outside overnight will mostly coincide with periods of low electricity demand so I fail to see what useful contribution EV's would be making to the grid. Baseload generators and other significant (yes even wind) will support low period demand assuming a typical 9-5 working. Paradoxically when they're first connected up for charge on arrival home and likely to require charging they'll either have limited charge
remaining which cannot be used to support demand, be a net drain on the network as they charge or be 'disconnected' waiting for the low (smart) demand period. For EV's with adequate charge remaining why would the user connect up anyway?
Maybe I just don't get it?
Possibly. On the other hand, it could increase the uptake in the medium term. I've had my car about 6 years and might be looking around for a good deal on a second hand car like you suggest. But I'm putting it off at the moment because I'm not using it much, I don't know how much I'll use it in the future, and I know that the choice of electric cars will be vastly improved in the near future. Why buy an ICE car now when I can wait and get an affordable 2nd hand electric car in a couple of years' time?
At present, yes, EVs are significantly more expensive because production has not yet reached the scale of ICE powered cars. But in time the cost difference will reduce, even if it won't entirely disappear.Problem with that logic is EV residuals and original list prices are *far* higher than an ICE, so there will remain a huge price difference. To give a practical example a 2 year old Renault Clio with 13k miles will cost you £ 9k, a 2 year old Renault Zoe with almost 30k miles will cost you nearly £ 15k - they are comparable cars from a size / spec perspective.
If the argument is that an electric car is cheaper to run - with fuel being the main cost - then you have to be doing moonship miles to offset that difference in a reasonable time frame. If people aren't doing the mileage, then fuel costs will drop and the drive to go electric - except perhaps in some of the cities where authorities have spotted a revenue raising opportunity - won't be there.
Anyone banking on a wholesale shift to EVs is probably not thinking clearly - in the same way people who think every mile of the UK rail network should be electrified aren't.
Turning back to rail, if environmental benefit is the key driver, then the obvious thing would be to ensure all suburban routes into the major cities, so London, Birmingham / West Mids, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds were electrified. It won't eliminate all diesels, because there are some practicalities to be considered, but each of those places has 'suburban' routes which run to / from their major stations and the stop/start nature of those routes is what causes far more pollution than an hourly, limited stop, high speed, diesel powered service.
Problem with that logic is EV residuals and original list prices are *far* higher than an ICE, so there will remain a huge price difference. To give a practical example a 2 year old Renault Clio with 13k miles will cost you £ 9k, a 2 year old Renault Zoe with almost 30k miles will cost you nearly £ 15k - they are comparable cars from a size / spec perspective.
I agree that electrification of urban and suburban rail routes is a no-brainer. As are the intercity routes - the remaining bits of the GWML, MML, Transpennine, Cross-country. But once those are done then the case for electrifying the rest of the network improves as well. Removing diesel islands will present significant advantages in terms of economy. At some stage electrification will no longer make sense, but I suspect that will be more for the likes of the Far North Line, than moderately-used secondary routes like (say) Cambridge to Norwich.
Exactly.
The Marston Vale, for example, is a nuisance, it's a diesel island with the nearest other diesel local services (222s are irrelevant) being found at Aylesbury or Marylebone. St Albans was wired despite barely justifying a 153 an hour because it removed a diesel island.
There are 2 short single-track sections on the MV; one at Bedford St. Johns, the other at Fenny Stratford.The problem with electrifying MV, is that there are a huge number of infrastructure changes also needed - so platform lengths, signal siting due to platform proximity to a level crossing etc.
It's not a simple case of just wire it - because there aren't any short 2 car OHL EMUs there's the problem. It's why the DMUs used were limited to 150s or 153s when there were alternatives available.
I don't think there was the same problem with the Abbey Flyer - the platform lengths were already long enough for 4 car units and it's a single track line, whereas MV is double track virtually all it's length.
Electric cars are just one of the potential solutions to balancing supply and demand. There are other energy storage solutions being developed right now - for example salt cavern storage. Currently these are used to store natural gas, but there is significant work being undertaken to convert to hydrogen.
The general point is that big short term spikes in electricity price creates a greater incentive for companies to invest in storage solutions.
Possibly. On the other hand, it could increase the uptake in the medium term. I've had my car about 6 years and might be looking around for a good deal on a second hand car like you suggest. But I'm putting it off at the moment because I'm not using it much, I don't know how much I'll use it in the future, and I know that the choice of electric cars will be vastly improved in the near future. Why buy an ICE car now when I can wait and get an affordable 2nd hand electric car in a couple of years' time?
Isn't the idea that EV cars would charge overnight and then discharge in the morning and evening peaks, which for obvious reasons are just before and just after the commute.
The issue is that they can go out and spend less than £1000 and buy a decent diesel (or perhaps petrol) car which will last for several years. Second-hand EV's are completely out of many people's price bracket and will have 'last years (or earlier)' battery range.
The interior of the Leafs is commensurate with the length of the journey time. They are good for a return journey within a radius of 60 miles and that's about it.Obviously, many people OAP's and low income families simply cant afford a new electric car (or any new car). The issue is that they can go out and spend less than £1000 and buy a decent diesel (or perhaps petrol) car which will last for several years. Second-hand EV's are completely out of many people's price bracket and will have 'last years (or earlier)' battery range.
A problem for new EV take up is that you pay roughly £50,000 all in for a Tesla model 3 long range with charger. Spread that over 10 years and it just about makes financial sense assuming the govt grant, cheap electricity and no road tax. Trouble is the Govt will have to bring in road pricing or other scheme to make up for lost road tax and fuel duty, so the savings which appear to make the new EV a sound investment will evaporate after a few years. Less expensive EV's such as the Leaf have cheap interiors not commensurate with a car costing around £25-30,000.
I'm sorry if it has been mentioned before up-thread, (I haven't made time to read it all), but the short section of the Cheshire Lines which is not wired between Manchester and Liverpool South Parkway is a complete joke.
I'm sorry if it has been mentioned before up-thread, (I haven't made time to read it all), but the short section of the Cheshire Lines which is not wired between Manchester and Liverpool South Parkway is a complete joke.
Which is already operating successfully. Google is your friend.Do you mean the tidal flow scheme in the Pentland Firth?
Does anybody have a link to an up to date status? Most of what Google refers to be is well out of date. It seems to suggest that at least 2 of the turbines have failed?Which is already operating successfully. Google is your friend.