France has 70% nuclear generation,63 GW, but achieves this with 10 GW interconnection, 14 GW storage hydro, 4 GW pumped hydro, 5 GW of diesels. and EJP tarrif.

[dave andrews]

Andrew F, et al, my guess is that if UK had 63 GW of wind, and the French existing capacities of flex as above,  this would allow most of the power generated to be usefully absorbed within Europe.

-----Original Message----

2009 data from the IEA Renewables Information 2011 shows that the
changes in 4 year were minute.
Regards
Roberto


-----Original Message-----
From: Sofia

Subject: RE: Electricity system - France versus Sweden - they are very
different

Hej
Replies below for 2005
I can also get data for 2009 but will take a bit longer best

GW storage hydro 14.59 GW in 2005
GW run of river 6.16 GW in 2005
GW of pumped storage 4.302 GW in 2005
GW nuclear 63.363 GW in 2005



Sofia
Energy System Technology

Subject: FW: Electricity system - France versus Sweden - they are very
different

Hi...do you happen to have details of French hydro and nuclear ?

Approximate would do:

GW storage hydro 14.59 GW in 2005
GW run of river 6.16 GW in 2005
GW of pumped storage 4.302 GW in 2005
GW nuclear 63.363 GW in 2005

Best

David Andrews
Energy Systems

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Anna

Subject: Electrcity system - France versus Sweden - they are very
different

Hi Dave,

I saw that someone wrote that France and Sweden has comparable
electricity system. I disagree. They may look similar when looking at
installed capacity, however even there they differ when Sweden in
addition to having a larger share of installed capacity of hydro
compared with France is integrated with the Norwegian electricity system
(which is almost 100% hydro).

Looking at the yearly generated electricity the differences between
France and Sweden are even greater. Below is the share of hydro and
nuclear in the total energy output. The Swedish hydro power stations
seem to have a higher available factor on their hydro power (hence lots
of water) compared with France.

Ciao
Anna

Share of Hydro and Nuclear in the total electricity (Eurostat)
Sweden          2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006
2007    2008    2009
Share Hydro (net)       55%     50%     46%     40%     40%     47%
44%     45%     47%     49%
Share Nuclear (net)     39%     44%     46%     49%     51%     45%
46%     44%     42%     38%

Share of Hydro and Nuclear in the total electricity (Eurostat)
France          2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006
2007    2008    2009
Share Hydro (net)       14%     15%     12%     12%     12%     10%
11%     12%     12%     12%
Share Nuclear (net)     76%     76%     78%     78%     78%     78%
78%     77%     76%     75%

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

[dave andrews]

Fred,

 

I believe we could conceivably turn the sea to our advantage, by locating  mass produced pumped hydro storage systems,  either  Mulberry type concrete caissons or geo tex bags tethered to the sea bed in depths of 100 m using compressed air to expel the contained water as per a submarine, with a hydro turbine to recover the energy.  These would be conveniently located near to offshore wind turbines, and possible attached to the base of floating wind turbines.  There are various research programmes looking at this sort of thing.

 

According to Czish there is 6 weeks of European full load in terms of hydro storage capacity, and this would be used to compensate for short term - hourly, daily,  wind outs. 

 

When a large low wind system moves in, then you would simply restart the existing power stations, (which would be happy to receive about 0.5 p/kWh for every unit sold in europe over the year, for mainly doing nothing) which ideally will run on biomass.

 

But in any case, Czishs grid stretches to North Africa and to the Ukraine and stationary wind systems do not cover this large area.

 

Also they will take days to cover europe which is plenty of time to start up the power stations.

 

Dave

On 20 December 2011 12:18, star...@yahoo.com <star...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Dave

 

Britain will not have 63 GW of wind before 2040, so any statements which are made are some what academic. The chances are that by that time NW Europe will be heavily reliant on wind and nuclear. As these countries will  encounter the same wind systems as Britain, and will also have a high base load of nuclear, they to will be trying to dump their power somewhere in eastern or southern Europe.  Here countires like the Netherlands, Germany and France will have a marked advantage over Britain as thye will be able to rely on overland AC and HVDC systems. In contrast Britain will be using more expensive undersea systems as well as having to to pay for the use of the Continental Grid.

 

Britain, and Ireland need to focus on how best to use surplus wind and nuclear electricity, and because of our continuing need for heat, should look at the use of electricity in renewable heat systems.

 

Fred

[dave andrews]

Andrew,

 

good point......I think the French figures are fairly clear when they talk about GW this is clearly capacity, but 70% nuclear means energy delivered over the year.

 

And you are right in implying that 63 GW of wind is not the same in terms of energy delivered as 63 GW of nuclear.

 

Best

 

Dave

On 20 December 2011 12:37, A FAWCETT <a.fawc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Dear All,

One thing we need to be clear about is whether you are talking about power or energy.

A bit concerned that the last couple of posts have been mixing up the two.

Especially when you start looking at Wind, the capacity factor is likely to be of the order of 30% on-shore, and something bigger off-shore, (if I believe the claims made).

One would expect much higher from a modern nuclear station.

rgds

Andrew

---

From: "star...@yahoo.com" <star...@yahoo.com>
To: "grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com" <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton Wind energy group <wind-energ...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011, 11:18
Subject: Re: France has 70% nuclear generation,63 GW, but achieves this with 10 GW interconnection, 14 GW storage hydro, 4 GW pumped hydro, 5 GW of diesels. and EJP tarrif.

Dear Dave

 

Britain will not have 63 GW of wind before 2040, so any statements which are made are some what academic. The chances are that by that time NW Europe will be heavily reliant on wind and nuclear. As these countries will  encounter the same wind systems as Britain, and will also have a high base load of nuclear, they to will be trying to dump their power somewhere in eastern or southern Europe.  Here countires like the Netherlands, Germany and France will have a marked advantage over Britain as thye will be able to rely on overland AC and HVDC systems. In contrast Britain will be using more expensive undersea systems as well as having to to pay for the use of the Continental Grid.

 

Britain, and Ireland need to focus on how best to use surplus wind and nuclear electricity, and because of our continuing need for heat, should look at the use of electricity in renewable heat systems.

 

Fred

 

 

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
To: Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton Supergrid group <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton Wind energy group <wind-energ...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011, 10:34
Subject: France has 70% nuclear generation,63 GW, but achieves this with 10 GW interconnection, 14 GW storage hydro, 4 GW pumped hydro, 5 GW of diesels. and EJP tarrif.

[dave andrews]

From wikipedia:

 

Nuclear power is the primary source of electric power in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.^[1]

France is also the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.^[1][2] France's nuclear power industry has been called "a success story" that has put the nation "ahead of the world" in terms of providing cheap, CO₂-free energy.^[3] However, France's nuclear reactors are mainly used in load-following mode and some reactors close on weekends because there is no market for the electricity.^[4][5] This means that the capacity factor is low by world standards, which is not an ideal economic situation for nuclear plants.^[4]

On 21 December 2011 10:57, Peter Rowberry <prow...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Of course environmental assessments will need to be done, but note that many of France's nuclear reactors are dependent on river water for their operation and many had to be closed down this summer because of lack of cooling water. I am a great fan of pumped storage to store energy and absolutely no enthusiasm for nuclear as a way of providing that storage!

----- Original Message -----

From: Lowe, Robert

To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Claverton AB MAIN GROUP ; Claverton Wind energy group

Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:16 PM

Subject: Re: France has 70% nuclear generation,63 GW, but achieves this with 10 GW interconnection, 14 GW storage hydro, 4 GW pumped hydro, 5 GW of diesels. and EJP tarrif.

All

I think there is there a need for a scoping environmental impact analysis of this idea.  How much would use of existing hydro in this way change patterns of water flow in rivers?  Would such changes make a significant difference to ecosystems?

Bob

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:33:13 +0100
To: <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>, Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>, Claverton Wind energy group <wind-energ...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: France has 70% nuclear generation,63 GW, but achieves this with 10 GW interconnection, 14 GW storage hydro, 4 GW pumped hydro, 5 GW of diesels. and EJP tarrif.

Fred,

 

I believe we could conceivably turn the sea to our advantage, by locating  mass produced pumped hydro storage systems,  either  Mulberry type concrete caissons or geo tex bags tethered to the sea bed in depths of 100 m using compressed air to expel the contained water as per a submarine, with a hydro turbine to recover the energy.  These would be conveniently located near to offshore wind turbines, and possible attached to the base of floating wind turbines.  There are various research programmes looking at this sort of thing.

 

According to Czish there is 6 weeks of European full load in terms of hydro storage capacity, and this would be used to compensate for short term - hourly, daily,  wind outs. 

 

When a large low wind system moves in, then you would simply restart the existing power stations, (which would be happy to receive about 0.5 p/kWh for every unit sold in europe over the year, for mainly doing nothing) which ideally will run on biomass.

 

But in any case, Czishs grid stretches to North Africa and to the Ukraine and stationary wind systems do not cover this large area.

 

Also they will take days to cover europe which is plenty of time to start up the power stations.

 

Dave

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2109/4693 - Release Date: 12/20/11

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.