"we cannot go above 40% wind penetration without resorting to external links?" HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency

[dave andrews]

Andrew,

Well you could go to close to 100% without inter connectors, it might just not be the most economical solution. You have to say how much are you prepared to spend.

For example you could install sufficient electrolysers for hydrogen production, store in solution mined salt caverns ( which has been costed). Burn the hydrogen in some form..engines / turbines or fuel cells chp when no wind.  I have not idea of the scale of costs involved here.  That is one solution that technically would work more or less on its own.  Feed electrolyser waste heat into chp dh networks.

But you could also do it with a mixture of hydrogen as above plus other techs:

• Build chp dh networks for the whole country with 3 day heat stores, as per Scandinavia and put the surplus wind energy into these hot water tanks. 
• Use (hydrogen?) chp stations to balance wind as per Denmark now with biomass
• Use compressed air energy storage - Huntsdorf
• Use sub sea reservoirs, attached to sea bed to create numerous small pumped storage schemes  - either concrete caissons or flexible bags - details on claverton site. These can be quite long term.
• Ditto submerged tanks on floating wind turbines - these are being designed right now.
• Provide each house with a 3 kW immersion heater and night storage heater, all remotely switchable - absorb and release surplus wind.
• Ditto heat pumps.
• Provide inter seasonal heat stores in caverns, as has been investigate in Scandinavia.
• Provide compressed air energy storage per house in the form of a small diving type compressor and diving cylinders. (feed Joule heating into domestic heating) Look up PESTO system on the web.Use expansion cooling in fridges.
• Use planned electric vehicles as a switchable load, only for short term.
• Use lifed out, but still useable automotive batteries for storage
• Constrain off during relatively infrequent simultaneous high winds to provide spinning reserve from wind turbines

This is a non exhaustive list, none of which I am advocating or not advocating.

Which mix is chosen would depend on detailed modelling and consideration and optimization studies.

I strongly suspect that compared to inter connectors, the inter connectors would come off looking very well.

Why do you not do some research and tell us the cost and size of the proposed Norway UK connections which was not built yet, but will probably be announced shortly?

There will be / are all sort caveats and constraints on the above list which I have not mentioned ( I have a life to lead) but which I am aware of, and no doubt Chris Hodrien will start misinterpreting and misstating my point of view. 

My question to you is, why would we not want to have interconnectors?  We already have 5 GW to Europe?  Whats the problem?

Hope this helps - get back to us with your research.

With kind regards

Dave Andrews

On 16 December 2011 19:34, A FAWCETT <a.fawc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

David,

But would you accept that we cannot go above 40% wind penetration without resorting to external links to sources such as you mention to balance the grid?

Andrew

---

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
To: wind-energ...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011, 18:09
Subject: Re: HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency

Andrew...easy enough for us to connect to norway. Cable routes
have been identified and costed.

We can increase french interconnector capacity and share the swiss
hydro with the french.

Dave
On 16/12/2011, A FAWCETT <a.fawc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Thank you, David.
>
> But I imagine that the 20-30GW will still represent less than the mentioned
> 40%?
>
> However, if we replace more petrol/diesel vehicles by electric, and
> therefore had, say, 80GW total, and wind became, eventually, 50% of this,
> say 40GW, how would NGC cope?
>
> By the way, I agree that because of the UK's greater North/South length, we
> may have more geographic wind diversity than Denmark.
>
> But on the other hand Denmark is better placed to buy hydro from Norway than
> we are.
>
> kind regards
>
> Andrew
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: David Milborrow <david.m...@btinternet.com>
> To: "wind-energ...@googlegroups.com"
> <wind-energ...@googlegroups.com>;
> "grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com"
> <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: "energy-disc...@googlegroups.com"
> <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; John Baldwin
> <johnb...@cngservices.co.uk>
> Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011, 14:53
> Subject: Re: HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> Depending which DECC paper you read we won't have 40 GW of wind by 2020 -
> about 28-30 GW.
>
> Once or twice a year, the intra-hourly power from swing from 30 GW MAY be
> about 5400 MW - somewhat less than the winter morning demand surge. The
> standard deviation of that wind swing will be about 900 MW. I base the wind
> power swings on analysis of data from DK and IE - both smaller than GB. I
> would expect the greater geographical diversity to result in lower swings
> than this in UK. I quote the 1-hour swings, since they are the most
> challenging from the SO's point of view. I do not say "no problem", but
> "manageable swings"
>
> As for 100% wind, the Danish SO has looked at it, although I would argue
> that he/she (what gender are SOs?) has overstated it - it turns out to be
> about 70%.
>
> Best regards
>
> David
>
> David Milborrow
>
> From: A FAWCETT <a.fawc...@btinternet.com>
>>To: "wind-energ...@googlegroups.com"
>> <wind-energ...@googlegroups.com>;
>> "grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com"
>> <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>
>>Cc: "energy-disc...@googlegroups.com"
>> <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; John Baldwin
>> <johnb...@cngservices.co.uk>
>>Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011, 14:23
>>Subject: Re: HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency
>>
>>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>
>>I am enjoying this debate.
>>
>>
>>I think that this 40% is an important number.  I was taught at Loughborough
>> University that 40% was a practical limit.  When I quizzed conference
>> presenters in London a year ago (who were presenting the 100% renewable
>> scenario) as to HOW they would better this, I only got totally evasive
>> answers.  They seemed to rely on North African solar and hugely increased
>> international links.
>>
>>
>>Suppose you have 40GW of wind on the system. (I believe this is planned for
>> about 2020).  Average output, say 15GW.  Just think of the swings (from
>> about 5GW to about 35GW?), that would arise.  How do you cope in practice
>> with that or swings even bigger than that?  I am not sure that I trust
>> somebody that just says "no problem".
>>
>>
>>Right now, we have Dinorwig, 2GW, and some others (another 1GW?).  We don't
>> have the geography to build 10-20GW of Dinorwigs.
>>
>>
>>Will owners of existing fossil fired plants wish to keep them open for
>> this?  Do we have enough of Dave's diesels?  Chris has told me about high
>> efficiency GE gas turbines.  I think something like this is a must.
>>
>>
>>Go on, knock me down, but HOW do you really deal with these swings?
>>
>>
>>Andrew Fawcett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: David Milborrow <david.m...@btinternet.com>
>>To: "grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com"
>> <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>
>>Cc: "energy-disc...@googlegroups.com"
>> <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton Wind energy group
>> <wind-energ...@googlegroups.com>; John Baldwin
>> <johnb...@cngservices.co.uk>
>>Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011, 12:07
>>Subject: Re: HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency
>>
>>
>>Dave A,
>>
>>Yes, Dave, NGT have said they can deal with lots of wind (I forget the
>> exact wording; I think it was "no technical limit"), and have provided
>> estimates of the extra costs for assimilating 40% wind. As I have often
>> said its the additional uncertainty that matters - when combined with the
>> existing uncertainties. This is a non-linear calculation.
>>btw more frequency response will be needed when those new nuclear units
>> come on line. Extra cost? Up to £100M p.a. or more, depending on the unit
>> sizes.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>David
>>
>>David Milborrow
>>
>>From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
>>>To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com
>>>Cc: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com; Claverton Wind energy group
>>> <wind-energ...@googlegroups.com>; John Baldwin
>>> <johnb...@cngservices.co.uk>
>>>Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011, 11:09
>>>Subject: Re: HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency
>>>
>>>I donlt have the exact reference but according to David Millborrow, Nat
>>> Grid are on record as saying they can deal with any foreseeable
>>> penetration of wind.
>>>
>>>That will be one of the reasons why they plan to increase fast reserve
>>> from 0.5 GW, to 4 GW. (lots of lovely diesels!*)
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>(Chris - * but only to be used for very short bursts when predictions will
>>> be incorrect whilst they wind up bigger plant in an orderly and non
>>> damaging manner, thereby meaning much lower levels of spinning reserve
>>> are needed than otherwise)
>>>
>>>On 16 December 2011 11:48, Chris Hodrien <chod...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


--
Dave Andrews
K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166
+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

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

 

 

[dave andrews]

Andrew...please circulate your paper. thanks.  Dave 

On 17 December 2011 17:39, A FAWCETT <a.fawc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

I also have a paper written by someone from UK nuclear industry explaining how they cycle a couple of stations...

I am absolutely not against interconnection, from a technical point of view, but I will be interested to see whether interconnectors are built with sufficient power.

A

---

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>

To: grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com; Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2011, 17:31
Subject: Re: "we cannot go above 40% wind penetration without resorting to external links?" HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency

They are massively interconnected to adjacent countries, the UK, Swiss hydro. They run the Belgian lights at night.

And yes, they have 5 GW of diesels, and they have the EJP tarrif which means they can have massive loads switch offs of all types of consumers, in exchange for a slightly cheaper tarrif.

On 17 December 2011 17:28, A FAWCETT <a.fawc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

How do they manage 70-80% in France?

Andrew

---

From: "star...@yahoo.com" <star...@yahoo.com>
To: "grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com" <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>; "wind-energ...@googlegroups.com" <wind-energ...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; Jerome Guillet <jerome...@yahoo.fr>
Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2011, 16:21
Subject: Re: "we cannot go above 40% wind penetration without resorting to external links?" HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency

Dear All

 

It seems to be completely lost on people that nuclear cannot go above 40% either, without flexible external links, mainly coming from hydro or from convnetional fossil plants.

 

 The 30 % of output from nuclear in Britain in the late 1990s was starting to cause strain on the fossil plant sector. Because of the concern, a major conference was set up in London in 2001 on the effects of plant cycling on power plant maintenance and costs. A report of the conference is given in "Materials at High Temperature"

 

It was at this conference, in the opening presentation, I asked delegates to look beyond the present concern caused by nuclear  to the coming problems resulting from wind energy. I believe I was the first raise this issue and have been harping on about it ever since.

 

Fred

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
To: wind-energ...@googlegroups.com; Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton Supergrid group <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>; Jerome Guillet <jerome...@yahoo.fr>
Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2011, 12:57
Subject: "we cannot go above 40% wind penetration without resorting to external links?" HVDC transmission economics, 'big wind' intermittency

Andrew,