Re: gridwatch

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/06/13 13:31, Tim Streater wrote:
> Andrew Neil (yes, BrilloPad himself) tweeted about how at this moment
> wind is providing 12% of the UK's volts requirement, so I tweeted back
> to him to take a look at gridwatch.
>
actually last time I looked, it was. 3.8GW from 32GW demand

Now its over 4GW and barely 30GW demand.

"The one day of the year the wind is actually blowing everywhere"

So that will cost the taxpayer a couple of million then.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:31:17 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

> Andrew Neil (yes, BrilloPad himself) tweeted about how at this moment
> wind is providing 12% of the UK's volts requirement, so I tweeted back
> to him to take a look at gridwatch.

10.5% currently. 3.31 from wind demand 31.44.

So without coal (9.97), nuclear (6.88), gas (7.9) and 3i sh from
everything else (inteconnects, biomass mainly) one in ten homes could
have their lights on.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[AnthonyL]

.3GW out of 32GW demand (everyone turning Andy Murray off?).

So the CCGT's appear to be running flat out. Their cost never seems
to get factored in to the headline savings of wind.

--
AnthonyL

[newshound]

On 15/06/2013 14:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 15/06/13 13:31, Tim Streater wrote:
>> Andrew Neil (yes, BrilloPad himself) tweeted about how at this moment
>> wind is providing 12% of the UK's volts requirement, so I tweeted back
>> to him to take a look at gridwatch.
>>
> actually last time I looked, it was. 3.8GW from 32GW demand
>
> Now its over 4GW and barely 30GW demand.
>
> "The one day of the year the wind is actually blowing everywhere"
>
> So that will cost the taxpayer a couple of million then.
>
>

Not the taxpayer, the electricity user.

Back to 270 MW now though.

Apart from the usual GW of nuclear on the French interconnector, I see
we have another GW on the Dutch. Is that actually Dutch generation (CCGT
I suppose) or are they re-exporting more French nuclear?

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/06/13 17:49, newshound wrote:
> On 15/06/2013 14:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 15/06/13 13:31, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Andrew Neil (yes, BrilloPad himself) tweeted about how at this moment
>>> wind is providing 12% of the UK's volts requirement, so I tweeted back
>>> to him to take a look at gridwatch.
>>>
>> actually last time I looked, it was. 3.8GW from 32GW demand
>>
>> Now its over 4GW and barely 30GW demand.
>>
>> "The one day of the year the wind is actually blowing everywhere"
>>
>> So that will cost the taxpayer a couple of million then.
>>
>>
> Not the taxpayer, the electricity user.
>
> Back to 270 MW now though.
>

make that 140MW.

> Apart from the usual GW of nuclear on the French interconnector, I see
> we have another GW on the Dutch. Is that actually Dutch generation
> (CCGT I suppose) or are they re-exporting more French nuclear?

Its almost impossible to say - it is after all a grid. All it IS saying
is that bulk prices there are below bulk prices here, so paying to push
it over the link is worthwhile.


Looking at the pressure charts, wind is doing SFA anywhere in N Europe.
The wind isn't always blowing somewhere. Often its not blowing anywhere.

I'd say that realistically what happens is the France is sitting at this
time of year on masses of nuclear capacity, so it floods the market with
that, then anyone burning coal will take a view on whether they an sell
that to the UK, or shut it off.

[The Other Mike]

CCGT capacity today is around 28GW (out of 30GW installed), so it is nowhere
near 'flat out'


--

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/06/13 19:06, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <kpktee$ep5$1...@news.albasani.net>,

> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 16/06/13 17:49, newshound wrote:
>> > On 15/06/2013 14:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >> On 15/06/13 13:31, Tim Streater wrote:
>> >>> Andrew Neil (yes, BrilloPad himself) tweeted about how at this
>> moment
>> >>> wind is providing 12% of the UK's volts requirement, so I tweeted
>> back
>> >>> to him to take a look at gridwatch.
>> >>>
>> >> actually last time I looked, it was. 3.8GW from 32GW demand
>> >>
>> >> Now its over 4GW and barely 30GW demand.
>> >>
>> >> "The one day of the year the wind is actually blowing everywhere"
>> >>
>> >> So that will cost the taxpayer a couple of million then.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Not the taxpayer, the electricity user.
>> >
>> > Back to 270 MW now though.
>> >
>>
>> make that 140MW.
>

> 110MW and falling.
>
make that 20MW... :-)

I think that is, whilst discussion rages in the Telegraph about wind
power, the worst wind output Ihave EVER seen.
£10bn quid plus, lives and landscapes ruined, bats and birds minced to
ribbons, and all it will reliably do is get one train out of Euston.

it was like the time in May when the council votes to allow a wind farm
'because of global warming' whilst outside a blizzard was raging.

Never mind, 'the wind is always blowing somewhere'

Not only does God exist, he has a wicked sense of humour.

So right now, not one piece of solar or wind energy is actually
producing anything at all.

Well that's a £100 quid off the electricity bill anyway.

[The Other Mike]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:17:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>make that 20MW... :-)
>
>I think that is, whilst discussion rages in the Telegraph about wind
>power, the worst wind output Ihave EVER seen.
>£10bn quid plus, lives and landscapes ruined, bats and birds minced to
>ribbons, and all it will reliably do is get one train out of Euston.
>
>it was like the time in May when the council votes to allow a wind farm
>'because of global warming' whilst outside a blizzard was raging.
>
>Never mind, 'the wind is always blowing somewhere'
>
>Not only does God exist, he has a wicked sense of humour.
>
>So right now, not one piece of solar or wind energy is actually
>producing anything at all.
>
>Well that's a £100 quid off the electricity bill anyway.

There is currently 7136MW of wind turbine capacity installed (with operational
metering)

Given that current output of 20MW and the need to meet 60GW maximum demand the
country would require around 21408GW of wind turbine capacity, or 21,408,000
wind turbines of 1MW rating plate output.

The land area of the UK is 243,610 km^2, so that is 88 wind turbines per square
km...and 60GW of conventional generation to back it up fitted in the gaps
between all those wind turbines.


Privatising the UK energy sector, pissing away the UK's gas resources and not
building 50GW of nuclear capacity to displace coal 25 years ago is the most
treacherous act carried out by any government. Funding wind turbines and
solar PV FIT's is the second most treacherous act.


--

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/06/13 22:57, The Other Mike wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:17:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> make that 20MW... :-)
>>
>> I think that is, whilst discussion rages in the Telegraph about wind
>> power, the worst wind output Ihave EVER seen.
>> £10bn quid plus, lives and landscapes ruined, bats and birds minced to
>> ribbons, and all it will reliably do is get one train out of Euston.
>>
>> it was like the time in May when the council votes to allow a wind farm
>> 'because of global warming' whilst outside a blizzard was raging.
>>
>> Never mind, 'the wind is always blowing somewhere'
>>
>> Not only does God exist, he has a wicked sense of humour.
>>
>> So right now, not one piece of solar or wind energy is actually
>> producing anything at all.
>>
>> Well that's a £100 quid off the electricity bill anyway.
> There is currently 7136MW of wind turbine capacity installed (with operational
> metering)

No there isnt.

ist about 5GW actually. Unless the London Array is actually gone
opetational.

> Given that current output of 20MW and the need to meet 60GW maximum demand the
> country would require around 21408GW of wind turbine capacity, or 21,408,000
> wind turbines of 1MW rating plate output.
>
> The land area of the UK is 243,610 km^2, so that is 88 wind turbines per square
> km...and 60GW of conventional generation to back it up fitted in the gaps
> between all those wind turbines.
>
>
> Privatising the UK energy sector, pissing away the UK's gas resources and not
> building 50GW of nuclear capacity to displace coal 25 years ago is the most
> treacherous act carried out by any government. Funding wind turbines and
> solar PV FIT's is the second most treacherous act.

No: at the time it made sense. The real issue was that later on, in the
Blair years, it should have been considered.

But it was more important to ban foxhunting, as I remember.

Who was mister for energy?

Ah, Someone called Ed Miliband.

By their deeds thou shalt know them..

[AnthonyL]

The .3 related to wind. Low wind usually means high CCGT.

Didn't realise tha the CCGT capacity was so high though.




--
AnthonyL

[Dave Liquorice]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:11:43 GMT, AnthonyL wrote:

>>> So the CCGT's appear to be running flat out. Their cost never
seems
>>> to get factored in to the headline savings of wind.

What "savings"?

>> CCGT capacity today is around 28GW (out of 30GW installed), so it
is
>> nowhere near 'flat out'
>

> Didn't realise tha the CCGT capacity was so high though.

Need it for the winter when demand peaks over 55GW, will need it even
more this coming winter as several GW of coal has been shutdown and
not replaced.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[The Natural Philosopher]

yeah, it is. CCGT sets are relatively cheap to build, but expensive to
run, so they tend to be used in times of high demand when prices are higher.
Nuclear is the reverse,. Expensive to build, but fuel costs are minimal,
so the way to make money is to run e,m all the time for whatever you can
get.

A polished shrink wrapped lead contained fuel rod including disposal
costs is something like a penny a unit of electricity it generates, or
maybe less. It represents far far less in terms of raw uranium it
contains. Th4e cost is all in processing. So all other things being
equal., it pays to sell electricity at anything over a penny a unit, as
against switching the thing off to 'save money'

So a nuclear power plant will always be the last to drop out of a Dutch
auction. Whereas gas is usually the first - with raw gas up around IIRC
5p a unit generated. And coal in the 2-3p region.

Of course wind and solar are like nuclear, The fuel costs nothing so
sell it at whatever you can get for it. The problem is that if that was
left to the market, they wouldn't be profitable enough to be worth
building at all.

(don't take those figures as gospel, I haven't time to actually check
them thoroughly)

Left to the market we would have probably around 30GW of nuclear, and
20GW of coal, and 10GW of gas. That would be the cheapest mix.

Which is why the politicians have not left it to the market, because it
doesn't suit their politics to have that mix.

[The Other Mike]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:12:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 16/06/13 22:57, The Other Mike wrote:
>
>> There is currently 7136MW of wind turbine capacity installed (with operational
>> metering)
>No there isnt.
>
>ist about 5GW actually. Unless the London Array is actually gone
>opetational.

If you wish to disagree with what is published by Elexon then go ahead, but
you'll be wrong.

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/staticdata/PowerParkModules.xls

>> Privatising the UK energy sector, pissing away the UK's gas resources and not
>> building 50GW of nuclear capacity to displace coal 25 years ago is the most
>> treacherous act carried out by any government. Funding wind turbines and
>> solar PV FIT's is the second most treacherous act.
>No: at the time it made sense.

No it didn't. Bungs were flying all over the place to ensure that some greedy
bastards made lots of money fast with no regard for the long term consequences.
Control transferred from miners you could shoot to foreign corporations that
pissed away UK resources and were untouchable.

>The real issue was that later on, in the
>Blair years, it should have been considered.

He had enough on his plate trying to sort out the endless shit the previous
dictatorships of Thatcher and Major had left them. But I concede Blair made it
far worse with FIT parasites and the lack of balls to nationalise the energy
sector and run it for the benefit of the country and not some offshore entity.

However we are three years into Camerons ineffective regime and the thick inbred
c*nt still doesn't recognise the significance of an energy policy that delivers
low cost sustainable energy to the county. Burning gas is not the answer, it
never was the answer in the 90's and it isn't now.

>But it was more important to ban foxhunting, as I remember.
>
>Who was mister for energy?
>
>Ah, Someone called Ed Miliband.
>
>By their deeds thou shalt know them..

He was minister for a mere 18 months or so, in a period massively overshadowed
by the banking crisis that stemmed from Thatcher and her meddling 20 years
earlier in the finance sector.

The tories and the coalition have the record of appointing the biggest shits to
be Secretary of State for Energy: Peter Walker, Cecil Parkinson, John Wakeham,
Chris Huhne.



The last minister that understood the issues was Tony Benn and that was 35 years
ago
--

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 17/06/13 21:58, The Other Mike wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:12:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 16/06/13 22:57, The Other Mike wrote:
>>
>>> There is currently 7136MW of wind turbine capacity installed (with operational
>>> metering)
>> No there isnt.
>>
>> ist about 5GW actually. Unless the London Array is actually gone
>> opetational.
> If you wish to disagree with what is published by Elexon then go ahead, but
> you'll be wrong.
>
> http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/staticdata/PowerParkModules.xls

Well yes, i compared that with what was actually one the renewable UK
website and discovered a lot of wind fars they quote are apparently
still 'under construction.

In fact I spent two days cross correlating between that spreadsheet and
the data on renewable UKs website It gave me a figure just over 5GW,
which agreees well with what the metered dials actually show.

>>> Privatising the UK energy sector, pissing away the UK's gas resources and not
>>> building 50GW of nuclear capacity to displace coal 25 years ago is the most
>>> treacherous act carried out by any government. Funding wind turbines and
>>> solar PV FIT's is the second most treacherous act.
>> No: at the time it made sense.
> No it didn't. Bungs were flying all over the place to ensure that some greedy
> bastards made lots of money fast with no regard for the long term consequences.
> Control transferred from miners you could shoot to foreign corporations that
> pissed away UK resources and were untouchable.

Well I talked to someone who worked at the CEGB. He said 'one day,
interest rates shot up. That was the end for nuclear new build'

Doubtless you know better.

. But if you actually do the sums you find that every doubling of
interest rates puts about 50% on the cost of nuclear electricity.

Natural gas was almost a waste producst of oil production. It was very
cheap then. UK xcoal was simply not cpompetive with uimprted coal

*shrugs* you can spin it politically if you want, but at the time gas
was the cheapest way to generate. It isnt now of course

>> The real issue was that later on, in the
>> Blair years, it should have been considered.
> He had enough on his plate trying to sort out the endless shit the previous
> dictatorships of Thatcher and Major had left them. But I concede Blair made it
> far worse with FIT parasites and the lack of balls to nationalise the energy
> sector and run it for the benefit of the country and not some offshore entity.
>
> However we are three years into Camerons ineffective regime and the thick inbred
> c*nt still doesn't recognise the significance of an energy policy that delivers
> low cost sustainable energy to the county. Burning gas is not the answer, it
> never was the answer in the 90's and it isn't now.

Balir sorted out nothig. He took prposperity, borrowed against it to
feed the labourt tribes with decade long wages and credit party,
destroyed the country and left without a visible stain on his teflon suit.
Total cunt

Cameron is just useless.

>> But it was more important to ban foxhunting, as I remember.
>>
>> Who was mister for energy?
>>
>> Ah, Someone called Ed Miliband.
>>
>> By their deeds thou shalt know them..
> He was minister for a mere 18 months or so, in a period massively overshadowed
> by the banking crisis that stemmed from Thatcher and her meddling 20 years
> earlier in the finance sector.
>
> The tories and the coalition have the record of appointing the biggest shits to
> be Secretary of State for Energy: Peter Walker, Cecil Parkinson, John Wakeham,
> Chris Huhne.

Chris huhne was a liberal democrat, idiot. You know less about poloitcs
than about electrical power geneartion...

>
>
> The last minister that understood the issues was Tony Benn and that was 35 years
> ago

ROFLMAO. Benn is the biggest liar that ever lived.
I cant say I ever heard him say anything that I felt he actually believed.
A tooff who loathed the working class plebs, and laughed all the way
to the bank as he conned em blind.

[Bob Eager]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:33:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> The tories and the coalition have the record of appointing the biggest
>> shits to be Secretary of State for Energy: Peter Walker, Cecil
>> Parkinson, John Wakeham,
>> Chris Huhne.
> Chris huhne was a liberal democrat, idiot. You know less about poloitcs
> than about electrical power geneartion...

Well, he was in the coalition (see above) so that counts.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[The Other Mike]

On 17 Jun 2013 21:38:22 GMT, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:33:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> The tories and the coalition have the record of appointing the biggest
>>> shits to be Secretary of State for Energy: Peter Walker, Cecil
>>> Parkinson, John Wakeham,
>>> Chris Huhne.
>> Chris huhne was a liberal democrat, idiot. You know less about poloitcs
>> than about electrical power geneartion...
>
>Well, he was in the coalition (see above) so that counts.

Indeed, and that's why it was worded that way. I'm beginning to go off TNP.


--

[The Other Mike]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:33:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 17/06/13 21:58, The Other Mike wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:12:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/06/13 22:57, The Other Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is currently 7136MW of wind turbine capacity installed (with operational
>>>> metering)
>>> No there isnt.
>>>
>>> ist about 5GW actually. Unless the London Array is actually gone
>>> opetational.
>> If you wish to disagree with what is published by Elexon then go ahead, but
>> you'll be wrong.
>>
>> http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/staticdata/PowerParkModules.xls
>
>Well yes, i compared that with what was actually one the renewable UK
>website and discovered a lot of wind fars they quote are apparently
>still 'under construction.
>
>In fact I spent two days cross correlating between that spreadsheet and
>the data on renewable UKs website It gave me a figure just over 5GW,
>which agreees well with what the metered dials actually show.

bmreports - look at the 2 - 14 days and 2 - 52 weeks Output Usable By Fuel Type
and you get the published figures for declared availability - currently just
under 6GW.

The information you see there is exactly the same data available to those at
National Control only they get to see the live data, the post gate closure
redeclarations and the 'up to 2 day' data.

In the context of forecasting, demand and generation there is no reason
whatsoever why data on the renewables UK website should ever be used. It's like
asking a FIT parasite to have an objective and reasoned view on the UK energy
market. Shit data in, shit data out.




--

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 17/06/13 23:10, The Other Mike wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:33:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17/06/13 21:58, The Other Mike wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:12:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/06/13 22:57, The Other Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is currently 7136MW of wind turbine capacity installed (with operational
>>>>> metering)
>>>> No there isnt.
>>>>
>>>> ist about 5GW actually. Unless the London Array is actually gone
>>>> opetational.
>>> If you wish to disagree with what is published by Elexon then go ahead, but
>>> you'll be wrong.
>>>
>>> http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/staticdata/PowerParkModules.xls
>> Well yes, i compared that with what was actually one the renewable UK
>> website and discovered a lot of wind fars they quote are apparently
>> still 'under construction.
>>
>> In fact I spent two days cross correlating between that spreadsheet and
>> the data on renewable UKs website It gave me a figure just over 5GW,
>> which agreees well with what the metered dials actually show.
> bmreports - look at the 2 - 14 days and 2 - 52 weeks Output Usable By Fuel Type
> and you get the published figures for declared availability - currently just
> under 6GW.

which is not either authoritative and not "7136MW " either.

> The information you see there is exactly the same data available to those at
> National Control only they get to see the live data, the post gate closure
> redeclarations and the 'up to 2 day' data.
>
> In the context of forecasting, demand and generation there is no reason
> whatsoever why data on the renewables UK website should ever be used. It's like
> asking a FIT parasite to have an objective and reasoned view on the UK energy
> market. Shit data in, shit data out.

you might think they would be likely to overemphasize wind, not
underestimate it.

So tell me, is the London array actually operational yet or not?

Last time I looked I found no actual story saying 'yay! london array is
working'

And they don't normally miss an opportunity...
#
Their web site says
"The project should be fully operational by Spring 2013."

And yet its been in the elexon spreadsheet for over six months. As
available capacity.

I rest my case.

[The Other Mike]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:16:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

The data on bmreports, provided by Elexon is as authoritative as you can
possibly get. If you cannot accept that the data you are seeing is based on
fact and not something churned out by someone in a PR department then you are as
daft or blinkered as Drivel or harry.

7136MW is the figure in the spreadsheet, the maximum used for grid system
planning. It is used in determining export limits across system boundaries and
use of system charges. It is a 'copy' of the data in a fundamental operational
document, as important as the one that says the system frequency should be 50Hz.

>> The information you see there is exactly the same data available to those at
>> National Control only they get to see the live data, the post gate closure
>> redeclarations and the 'up to 2 day' data.
>>
>> In the context of forecasting, demand and generation there is no reason
>> whatsoever why data on the renewables UK website should ever be used. It's like
>> asking a FIT parasite to have an objective and reasoned view on the UK energy
>> market. Shit data in, shit data out.
>you might think they would be likely to overemphasize wind, not
>underestimate it.

Who are they?

The figures are given by the operator of the generation at the time of applying
for a connection. The 7136MW is the total of all those connections. Some
operators of embedded generation, at 132kV and below, both wind and
conventionally fuelled may not have operational metering and will not appear in
the totals.

The operators of the generation then declare availability on a real time basis
which will always be equal to or less than the maximum

The 'just under 6GW' figure (5877MW) is from here

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/additional/soapfunctions.php?element=national2to14daysfueltypegraph&output=

and is the totals of the declarations for availability at 2 days out.

Plant of all fuel types are offline for maintenance, some plant may not have
been even commissioned, but the connections are there (this situation is not
limited to wind plant)

>So tell me, is the London array actually operational yet or not?

If it is in the spreadsheet then it is operational for grid system planning
purposes and use of system purposes. As to whether it is declared operational
to the public then that is down to individual operator, they may decide to say
nothing. It may still be in the hands of and under the control of the
construction contractor and still undergoing final tests.

As far as the London array there was a peak of around 120MW last Friday on each
of the four blocks, so around 480MW of a possible 628MW

>Last time I looked I found no actual story saying 'yay! london array is
>working'
>
>And they don't normally miss an opportunity...
>#
>Their web site says
>"The project should be fully operational by Spring 2013."
>
>And yet its been in the elexon spreadsheet for over six months. As
>available capacity.
>
>I rest my case.

Generation is entered in the various spreadsheets at the point at which a
connection is made and power, either import or export can occur (for instance
conventional generation will be declared yet may not generate anything for an
extended period of time, purely taking an infeed for commissioning purposes) A
couple of GW of CCGT generation is currently in exactly that position and will
not generate commercially for another 5 months or so.


--

[AnthonyL]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:59:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>Of course wind and solar are like nuclear, The fuel costs nothing so
>sell it at whatever you can get for it. The problem is that if that was
>left to the market, they wouldn't be profitable enough to be worth
>building at all.
>
>(don't take those figures as gospel, I haven't time to actually check
>them thoroughly)
>
>Left to the market we would have probably around 30GW of nuclear, and
>20GW of coal, and 10GW of gas. That would be the cheapest mix.
>

Thanks for that. So do you have a feel for the average cost of
wind+solar taking into account the back up requirement of CCGT?


--
AnthonyL

[The Natural Philosopher]

yes. onshore wind starts around 16p and offshore is more - towards 30p,
and solar is around 40p.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf

has some outline calculations to see how these are derived, using
similart models for all the energy sources. But the actual costs of e.g.
new coal plant and fuel prices are less easy to find than you might
expect. NOr are O & M costs of power stations something people publish
on the net.


Additionally it's in nay ways an 'accounting decision' to add the cost
of backup to wind. And indeed to reliably give a cost to capital
intensive plant.

If yuou dont understand intermittency and accounting practices you can
always cherry pick something and make false claims - as Renewable UK do
- about anything.

The models in that paper use a simple accountingprinciple. Cost of
money is assumed constant between all forms of power capital
investmnent. No favours by way of low interest loans are applied to any
technology. Capital costs are written off linearly over the expected
lifetime of the equipment, and average capacity factors are applied to
the income streams that accord well with MEASURED (rather than claimed)
real world capacity factors.

In the case of gas backup the problem is even more thorny, so that model
takes the total cost of suppliying a fixed amount of power by a
gas/renewable combination,. and adding the excess cost of providing te
backup over and above what the backup would have cost if it were the
sloe supplier of electricity, to the renewable source,. pro rata.

I.e. you have te cost say of a GWh of gas. Then you have the cost of a
mixture of a GW of gas and a GW of wind, balancing each other. That is
more expensive. The gas consumption is assumed to go down, but that is
actually morethan offset by the cost of the wind, for example.

Then you take the *excess* cost over the gas alone situation, and apply
that excess cost *entirely* to the energy the wind farm produces. To
get a true and fair estimate of how much that part of the energy mix
costs you over and above what you would otherwise have paid. The wind
itself doesn't cost that, but putting it on the grid *does cost that
much extra* . Naturally that never enters into renewable UKs estimates
of renewable energy costs. They lie about the real life achieveable
capacity factors,(30-40% they say, 22%-25% in reality) they lie about
the lifetime of wind turbines (they say 25 years, the reality is 10-12
years) they ignore the cost impacts elsewhere on the grid (cost of
subsidising now unprofitable gas sets, cost of uprating the grid to deal
with high and variable trans national power flows) and its generators
and they totally ignore the social and environmental costs (detsroys
house prices, tourist industries, and jobs that only exist because
energy is cheap) of their technology.

If you model the direct cost in a spreadsheet, you can see that capacity
factor andcapital asset lifetime and amortization periods are
absolutely crucial in defining the cost of the electricity. Especially
in terms of sort lifetimes. Whether a knuke last 40 or 60 yers is not a
huge difference..the capital depreciation is 2.5% or 1.6% per year, and
that will be dwarfed by the interest on the money at say 7.5% a year.
And O&M costs - the cost of keeping the whole shebang working., could
easily be 10%-15%. But when you get to a ten year lifetime that's 10%
depreciation per year, and the cost does start to be highly impacted.

Then we have capacity factors. a windfarm that operates at a claimed
onshore 27% CF but actually only delivers 22% has just added 25% to the
cost of that electricity. If its offshore, and expected to deliver 40%
CF but only scrapes 25% its even worse.

So we have the sheer chutzpah of the renewable industry claiming 'grid
parity' and saying they 'still need subsidies' in more or less the same
breath. The first statements represents their marketing and their faux
estimates, the second recognises the actual reality of the true costs.

[The Natural Philosopher]

nevertheless it is in fact WRONG.

If it is not connected because the cables haven't been laid, then it is
by definition NOT AVAILABLE CAPACITY.

> As far as the London array there was a peak of around 120MW last Friday on each
> of the four blocks, so around 480MW of a possible 628MW

Says who?

And where did it go to?

>> Last time I looked I found no actual story saying 'yay! london array is
>> working'
>>
>> And they don't normally miss an opportunity...
>> #
>> Their web site says
>> "The project should be fully operational by Spring 2013."
>>
>> And yet its been in the elexon spreadsheet for over six months. As
>> available capacity.
>>
>> I rest my case.
> Generation is entered in the various spreadsheets at the point at which a
> connection is made and power, either import or export can occur (for instance
> conventional generation will be declared yet may not generate anything for an
> extended period of time, purely taking an infeed for commissioning purposes) A
> couple of GW of CCGT generation is currently in exactly that position and will
> not generate commercially for another 5 months or so.

Well in which case its a moot point as to whether or not BM reports
should be quoting it as 'available' on their site.

But if you want to say that there is 7GW plus of available capacity on
the grid from metered wind farms, be my guest. The fact is that in
reality it has never ever, even on high wind days generated more than....

mysql> select max(wind) from day;
+-----------+
| max(wind) |
+-----------+
| 5304 |
+-----------+

5.3GW. Ever. Even with the best possible wind conditions.

So wind is even shittier than we thought.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:08:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> If it is not connected because the cables haven't been laid, then it is
> by definition NOT AVAILABLE CAPACITY.

And that spread sheet says "Registered Capacity" ie. the sum of what
the rating plates on the generators say.

> mysql> select max(wind) from day;
> +-----------+
> | max(wind) |
> +-----------+
> | 5304 |
> +-----------+

If you take out all the farms that don't have a "Settlement BMU name"
you get 5919. That difference is 10% which from observation isn't far
from the mark for the number of turbines feathered on a windy day...

And one assumes that without a "Settlement" name the farm can't get
paid as no one knows who to settle with. You can bet no one is going
to feed the grid power if they ain't going to get paid for it.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[The Other Mike]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:59:53 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Left to the market we would have probably around 30GW of nuclear, and
>20GW of coal, and 10GW of gas. That would be the cheapest mix.

The market for electricity GENERATION has been FULLY DEREGULATED since 1990.
You cannot seem to grasp this point at all. There have been next to no
interventions by OFFER and later OFGEM in the generation market. Left to the
market is EXACTLY what we have now (with the exception of wind and solar)

>Which is why the politicians have not left it to the market, because it
>doesn't suit their politics to have that mix.

The politicians and the regulator have in the main being very 'hands off' with
generation except when they have had to bail out the nuclear sector. A number
of generation sites of many fuel types have gone to the wall and / or changed
hands more than once. The price dropped through the floor a decade or so ago.
Zero investment, plants changing hands for a quid.

The free market doesn't work because the free market is always, without
exception for short term gain and anything long term doesn't ever matter.

That is why we are in the shit we are now. It's Thatchers enduring legacy that
is crippling this country. She fucked the miners, she fucked the country and
from beyond the grave she will do so for generations to come.


--

[The Other Mike]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:08:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

The information IS correct. Elexon was "National Grid Settlements" for a
number of years, it is now operated at arms length.

The live data they have for generation and transfers is supplied to them by
National Grid with an accuracy of 0.1% Submissions for generation and
interconnector availability are from the generation or interconnector operator
and are submitted electronically.

The common pool of data is supplied back to National Grid and selected parts of
the data are supplied back to generation and interconnector operators.

You fail to understand that a connection to the grid made be made but the
generation may not generate for some time after the date of that connection.

>> As far as the London array there was a peak of around 120MW last Friday on each
>> of the four blocks, so around 480MW of a possible 628MW
>
>Says who?

bmreports

The information is in there for every single generating unit that has
operational metering dating back to 2008

The London array, or at least part of it connected to the grid under reference
T_LARYW-1 first generated and exported to the grid at around 18:00 on the 4th
January 2013 (initially 25MW peaking to 35MW at 21:00)

>And where did it go to?

It's an infinite bus. No one knows.

>>> Last time I looked I found no actual story saying 'yay! london array is
>>> working'
>>>
>>> And they don't normally miss an opportunity...
>>> #
>>> Their web site says
>>> "The project should be fully operational by Spring 2013."
>>>
>>> And yet its been in the elexon spreadsheet for over six months. As
>>> available capacity.
>>>
>>> I rest my case.
>> Generation is entered in the various spreadsheets at the point at which a
>> connection is made and power, either import or export can occur (for instance
>> conventional generation will be declared yet may not generate anything for an
>> extended period of time, purely taking an infeed for commissioning purposes) A
>> couple of GW of CCGT generation is currently in exactly that position and will
>> not generate commercially for another 5 months or so.
>Well in which case its a moot point as to whether or not BM reports
>should be quoting it as 'available' on their site.

They are not quoting it as being available. The figure listed for wind
generation is the sum total of all generation for which operational metering is
in place. That is made very clear. The declaration of actual maximum
availability is submitted by the same mechanism as any other generation
operator. It appears in the individual BM Reporting unit data after the data
has become historic and for advance notification, as a combined total by fuel
type in the "2 - 14 days and 2 - 52 weeks Output Usable By Fuel Type"

>But if you want to say that there is 7GW plus of available capacity on
>the grid from metered wind farms, be my guest. The fact is that in
>reality it has never ever, even on high wind days generated more than....

There is connection capacity provided for 7136MW, and I would not expect the
output to reflect that, it doesn't for any other fuel type. You only need to see
the wind entry for 2 - 14 days and 2 - 52 weeks Output Usable By Fuel Type to
see that. For wind it currently doesn't even reach 7GW 52 weeks hence but a few
weeks / months from now you might see vastly different figures.

>mysql> select max(wind) from day;
>+-----------+
>| max(wind) |
>+-----------+
>| 5304 |
>+-----------+
>
>5.3GW. Ever. Even with the best possible wind conditions.
>
>So wind is even shittier than we thought.
>
>>

You fail to understand that a connection does not mean 100% availability for
generation (and this applies to all plant types not just wind)

5304MW generated from a declared availability of 5877MW seems somewhere about
right in near ideal conditions. The maximum amount of wind generation able to
be connected to the grid, given section 36 consent under the electricity act
1990, and equipped with operational metering, IS EXACTLY 7136MW. 1GW of it
might be still in the factory or on a barge, 0.5GW of it might be undergoing
mechanical tests on site, the rest might be broken, or with a flock of seagulls
perched on a blade, or on fire.

It is not possible for anyone other than the grid system operator to determine
availability in real time (obviously an operator of generation knows their own
availability) You can get a feel for the situation two days in advance but
current day figures are not available nor those at the time of gate closure.
Historically you can look at the individual notifications on a per unit basis
and the balancing actions.

I explained it to you in basic terms and you still don't seem to be able to
understand the concept. Perhaps this 'real life' (gas) scenario may help.

Day 0 600MW of CCGT capacity is given consent by DECC

Day 1 -> Day 300 A new overhead line and 400kV substation is built.
Day 1 Construction of the new CCGT commences on site
Day 300 A physical connection to the grid is made
Day 300 Operational Metering is enabled
Day 300 Plant appears on bmreports
Day 300 Plant appears on displays at National Control
Day 301 Generator HV circuit breaker closed and the generator transformer is
back energised
Day 302 a backfeed of 1MW continuous is taken
Day 350 There are peaks of 10MW five times a day as large auxiliary plant is
energised

Day 410 Load tests commence at all power levels from 0 - 600MW

Day 449 Commissioning complete

Day 450 Generating plant handed over to operator, money changes hands
Day 450 Commercial load commences
Day 450 Generator output appears in sum total of availability for that plant
type on bmreports
Day 450 -> Submissions by the operator to the grid system operator (via elexon)
are made for generating capacity at 600MW

Day 451 at 0801 a cooling pump fails and will be out of service for 30 days

A resubmitted generating capacity limit is made as 500MW starting at settlement
period 16 on day 451 and continuing for 30 days.

The overall maximum output of the plant doesn't permanently change

The figure in the "2-14 Days Ahead Output Usable By Fuel Type (graph)" reflects
this temporary reduced capacity of 500MW

If the CCGT was the only one on the system then the figure in "Generation By
Fuel Type (table)" will be 500MW

The figure in bmreports for that particular unit shows a reduced figure for the
settlement period concerned and will continue to do so until after the
generation availability is redeclared.

The figure in the spreadsheet* associated with the BM reporting unit will always
remain as 600MW unless there is a permanent redeclaration (i.e the plant stops
CCGT operation and goes Open cycle on say one GT at a reduced output of 200MW)

* The only thing you won't find in the 'public' area of bmreports is the
conventional and nuclear plant equivalent of the wind spreadsheet - it's a
restricted document.

--

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:32:32 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

>>> Andrew Neil (yes, BrilloPad himself) tweeted about how at this
moment
>>> wind is providing 12% of the UK's volts requirement, so I tweeted
back
>>> to him to take a look at gridwatch.
>

> The more that we can demonstrate to journos what actually happens, and
> give them a reliable site based on public stats, the more they'll be
> likely to see through wind.

Nice example today. The wind ain't blowing and we are burning *lots*
of gas and exporting 0.67 GW to the Dutch (who have a lot of wind
generation)...

Demand: 39.98
Coal: 10.19 (*)
Nuke: 7.10
Gas: 19.33
Wind: 0.89
France: 0.99
Dutch: -0.67

(*) This has been very flat since the weekend, presumably the
"dynamic" coal plants are out for summer maintenance.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[The Other Mike]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:00:07 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:08:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> If it is not connected because the cables haven't been laid, then it is
>> by definition NOT AVAILABLE CAPACITY.
>
>And that spread sheet says "Registered Capacity" ie. the sum of what
>the rating plates on the generators say.

It's the same for *all* generation types. That it is wind is irrelevant.
Connection capacity for 7136MW is available. A particular wind turbine operator
might not use that capacity but they have paid for the infrastructure at a
defined point on the grid system to provide a connection of that capacity.

>> mysql> select max(wind) from day;
>> +-----------+
>> | max(wind) |
>> +-----------+
>> | 5304 |
>> +-----------+
>
>If you take out all the farms that don't have a "Settlement BMU name"
>you get 5919. That difference is 10% which from observation isn't far
>from the mark for the number of turbines feathered on a windy day...
>
>And one assumes that without a "Settlement" name the farm can't get
>paid as no one knows who to settle with. You can bet no one is going
>to feed the grid power if they ain't going to get paid for it.

Generation above a certain MW level *on the transmission grid system* has to be
registered in the settlement system. Below that registration is optional.
Embedded generation connected at 132kV and below is not usually registered
although there are a few exceptions.

All are metered locally but those that are not registered do not appear in the
live or availability figures on bmreports.

All will get paid regardless of if they are in the settlement system or not.


--