Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the company that operates the gas and power transmission networks in the UK and in the northeastern US, believes the idea of large coal-fired or nuclear power stations to be used for baseload power is “outdated”. “From a consumer’s point of view, the solar on the rooftop is going to be the baseload. Centralised power stations will be increasingly used to provide peak demand”, he says, in an exclusive interview for World Energy Focus, a publication of the World Energy Council produced by Energy Post. The chief of National Grid also notes that energy markets “are clearly moving towards much more distributed production and towards microgrids”.
“This industry is going through a tremendous transformation. We used to have a pretty good idea of what future needs would be. We would build assets that would last decades and that would be sure to cover those needs. That world has ended. Our strategy is now centred around agility and flexibility, based on our inability to predict or prescribe what our customers are going to want.”
As CEO, since 2007, of a company active on two continents, and being responsible for both gas and electricity transmission and distribution, Steve Holiday finds himself smack at the centre of the whirlwind developments in the energy sector. And since National Grid is a regulated (albeit publicly listed) company, he can speak from a reasonably independent position. Which makes it fascinating to talk to him.
“What is crucial”, says Holliday, “is what consumers will want. In the past all consumers got the same. One size fits all. Now one size will not fit all. People will want to interact with energy in many different ways.” This is why he warns against people who think they can predict the future. “Some people think they have the answer, whatever it may be. But I believe there will be different answers for different places, rural and cities, and for different customers. That’s why flexibility and agility are key.”
Taken by surprise
Nevertheless certain trends that are currently taking place are unmistakable, says Holliday. “The world is clearly moving towards much more distributed electricity production and towards microgrids. The pace of that development is uncertain. That depends on political decisions, regulatory incentives, consumer preferences, technological developments. But the direction is clear.”
“The amount of solar being added to the system is incredible. 1500 MW in the first three months of this year”
For the UK National Grid works with four Future Energy Scenarios, which are available on the internet and updated every year. According to these scenarios, it is likely that by 2020 small-scale, distributed generation will represent a third of total capacity in the UK. Holliday: “This is a quadrupling in just a few years. It represents a massive increase from the old days of centrally dispatched generation.” Recent government measures in the UK to limit subsidies for renewable energy may affect the timing of this development, says Holliday, but not the trend.
He notes that the speed at which the energy system is changing has taken many people by surprise, including himself. “The amount of solar being added to the system is incredible. 1500 MW in the first three months of this year. That’s the capacity of two power stations. I made a comment to the Energy Minister four years ago that there was little probability we would have 20,000 MW of solar in the UK. Now three of our scenarios have more than 20,000 MW of solar by 2035.”
Big systems
That’s not to say that there will be no need for big networks in the future, Holliday adds. “We need big systems that are able to take power that is spilling over. And you are unlikely to economically balance energy needs without some centrally dispatched generation, whether that’s offshore wind, nuclear power or gas. In this sense we see ourselves as a stable long-term business around which new business models are emerging.”
What is the future of baseload generation in such a system? “That’s asking the wrong question”, says Holliday. “The idea of baseload power is already outdated. I think you should look at this the other way around. From a consumer’s point of view, baseload is what I am producing myself. The solar on my rooftop, my heat pump – that’s the baseload. Those are the electrons that are free at the margin. The point is: this is an industry that was based on meeting demand. An extraordinary amount of capital was tied up for an unusual set of circumstances: to ensure supply at any moment. This is now turned on its head. The future will be much more driven by availability of supply: by demand side response and management which will enable the market to balance price of supply and of demand. It’s how we balance these things that will determine the future shape of our business.”
“If you have nuclear power in the mix, you will have to think about the size of these plants. Today they are enormous”
So nuclear power stations will be used to meet peak demand? “If you have nuclear power in the mix, you will have to think about the size of these plants. Today they are enormous. You will need to find a way to get smaller, potentially modular nuclear power plants. I suspect they are going to be associated with fixed demand for businesses rather than household consumers in future, for demand that’s locked in. For small consumers you need flexibility.”
Energy incubator
How much of a problem is the integration of intermittent renewables in Holliday’s view? “It’s simplistic to only look at storage. We will have the intelligence available in the system to ensure power is consumed when it’s there and not when it’s not there.” This is what software companies are working on at the moment, says Holliday. “We have a partnership with New York University where we support a programme for startups. Of the 30 startups we are supporting, 25 are software companies. And this is called an energy incubator!”
These companies, says Holliday, “are building the apps that will transform the energy world, aggregating data, marrying supply and demand. It is a really exciting space to be in.” As an example he notes that “there will be massive amounts of data available from vehicle charging stations in the future. Intelligence is going to decide how this will be used.”
Does this mean network operators are currently overinvesting? For example, do we really need to build big new power lines to transport electricity from offshore wind power farms, as some people are saying? Holliday: “It depends. If you look at Germany, they will have huge offshore capacity in the north and a lot of the consumption in the south. How else can you match that than with transmission lines? But in the UK and Northeastern US, the challenge is to ensure we are smart and limit the building more capacity and sweat our assets.”
Electrifying
In the UK total electricity demand is expected to stay flat until the mid-2020s. Then it will take off again as “enormous amounts of heat and transport are likely to be electrified”. He is convinced “cars will go electric”. So will a major portion of heat. “As the World Energy Council’s Jazz and Symphony Scenarios show, for the moment you can’t square the Energy Trilemma without fossil fuels. But in the future what you really need is electricity.” So could the likes of Shell, BP and Total move into electricity? “If you want to be an energy company ten years from now, it’s hard not to think about that.”
“In a competitive retail market as an energy supplier where volume drives profits it is difficult to incentivise using less energy”
Interestingly, the UK and Northeastern US have very different market designs. The UK retail market is competitive and fragmented. “In the Northeastern US”, says Holliday, “95% of our customers want us to procure their power and gas and simply charge them the wholesale costs.” The advantage of the US structure is that “it allows us to really focus on reducing our customers’ demand without implications for our profit. In a competitive retail market as an energy supplier where volume drives profits it is difficult to incentivise using less energy.” Yet in both markets, new entrants will emerge that will transform the business, says Holliday. “They will ask consumers what they will really value. 100% reliability? A low price? And they will find or design a product that is suitable.”
Editor’s Note
This interview was first published by World Energy Focus and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate banner=”82″]
John Laband says
People keep talking about intermitent supply from renewables without mentioning tidal power. Surely the most reliable and constant supply around. In 5 years we seem to be no further ahead. There needs to be focused government attention to developing the technology.
David Sanderson says
Technology is not new so doesn’t need to be proven. It’s just too expensive.
Sara Albaladejo Vargas says
That’s not how it works. Old technology can be explored again depending on economic, political, and technology research factors.
One of the gas industry’s current R&D topics is power-to-gas and that uses a century-old technology: electrolysis (first explored in 1785 says wikipedia).
However, as new needs arise, old technology can be explored in different ways to find more efficient methods, and environmental costs can be taken into account to determine how expensive a technology is.
Damon Hart-Davis says
Tidal would be good but (a) marine stuff is expensive and difficult and (b) tidal is still not demand-callable even if it’s predictable.
Rgds
Damon
Jan Verbanck says
Of all renewables, tidal would certainly have to be linked to mass storage. In the whole story, mass storage is the key answer to a lot of preoccupations. However, no matter what some claim to already have at their disposal, real mass storage is still very limited. Pumped hydro could be an answer, but the geography must be suitable and these project are 1/ expensive and 2/ time consuming to implement. Nevertheless, its potential is enormous. So, if to be implemented in time, now it the moment to start digging…
Mike Parr says
“And you are unlikely to economically balance energy needs without some centrally dispatched generation”……..or with 100MWs of dispatchable load.
“UK …electricity demand ….stay flat…..mid-2020s…. Then … take off again as “enormous amounts of heat and transport are likely to be electrified”. The give away is “likely”. Research recnetly conducted by PWR suggests a somewhat different scenario both for transport and at least – residential heat. More to follow.
David Sanderson says
Solar power is not baseload unless one redefines the term baseload. In the UK solar load factor is around 10% – no way is that baseload capacity. UK currently has a constant demand of around 20GW (summer trough) that is met 24 hours a day by plant capable of load factors > 90% – i.e. baseload plant.
In northern Europe solar radiation during the winter can be very low for weeks. Roof top solar makes a negligible contribution at those times. To talk of roof top solar being baseload is playing with words. When the the sun shines roof top solar just displaces the need for electricity bought over the grid from reliable baseload plants.
Battery storage is years away from being economic to deploy with solar other than to help on a day to day basis, certainly not during the winter dark period in the northern hemisphere.
michael hart says
Yes. I find it disturbing, if not frightening, to read the CEO of National Grid talking about rooftop solar power being “baseload” in the UK.
Frank says
Baseload describes a type of generator that has been used, and is still being used, but not one that is needed.
Generators bring two kinds ov value, cheap, and control. Baseload generators don’t give you much control. They are supposed to bring cheap, like wind and PV, which are their natural competitors.
Control can be brought with some combination of forcasting, upgraded grid, demand management, pumped hydro, battery, gas generators.
.... says
CCGTs are very flexible, some being capable of open cycle fast start operation. They are low cost too and ideal for running baseload, i.e. >90% utilisation. UK has about 25GW of baseload CCGT capacity which it very much needs. All countries also need reliable low cost energy. Typically baseload capable CCGTs are the lowest cost conventional plant. Onshore wind energy is cost competitive with new CCGTs, however off-shore (North Sea) is not. UK is saturated with onshore wind.
All grids use demand forecasting. Demand management to cope with peaks is extensively used in the UK mostly involving commercial/industrial consumers. Demand management of domestic consumers is not popular if it means restrictions say on when one cooks or washes clothes.
Grid upgrades to connect a new CCGT are minimal cost, whereas grid upgrades to deal with off-shore remote wind farms are far more significant and often the cost is socialised so not borne by the wind farm developer – a hidden cost as is the cost of back-up.
Pumped storage is very expensive, particularly if the costs are allocated to balancing wind. So in the UK there are no plans to build anymore capacity, indeed there aren’t feasible locations for more big schemes.
Battery storage to back up intermittent solar in the Northern hemisphere is currently only economic on a diurnal basis during the summer. It is not economic all the year round such that back-up conventional energy sources are not needed, and is unlikely to be for decades. In Mid-USA, South Africa and Aus. with solar utilisation rates double those of Northern Europe, grid independence is closer based on battery storage.
Upgraded European grids will not address wind intermittancy either. There are long periods in the winter when there is negligible wind across Europe. Data is available showing that overlaying wind power generation doesn’t smooth out the troughs, it actually would make wind output in aggregate more peaky.
So currently the best economic solution to cope with increasing renewables capacity and associated intermittancy is to build new CCGTs.
Frank says
CCGT is cetainly a competitive technology, and as you point out, it is relatively cheap, and gives you good control, and doesn’t take a decade or 7 billion dollars to build one.
But, it is still fossil fuel based. The more renewables, the better. Also, when I said demand management, what I really mean is time of use pricing, communicated at short intervals through the internet, so households can purchase programable equipment to take price into consideration, if they choose.
That could encourage time shifting of EV charging, air conditioners that make ice, and lots of other things. People are clever. Computers are cheap. Give people a reason, and the’ll do it.
Nigel West says
Fossil fuels will be needed for decades to back up. Renewables cannot fully substitute for fossil fuels, no matter how cheap renewables become.
Golyo says
If there is cheap storage then there is no need for fossil fuels. Like a cheap catalyst for water splitting.
Jerry Evans says
He was talking about a new definition of base load where demand is software controlled. Yes steal plants need traditional base loads but consumers can change patterns of use to match available supply.
We will still need some centralised production but the point is we won’t need 100% back up as the anti renewable folk tell us as we will be able to moderate demand to a large degree to suite the current available supply.
Nigel West says
What you mean by ‘moderating demand’ is cutting off certain consumers, either partially or fully. Doing that forcibly or through price gouging would be unpopular with consumers who do not want to be told when they can use electricity.
Jerry Evans says
That’s a view, mine is slightly different. I see the chance to use cheaper electricity by timing your washing machine loads etc as extra choice not negative in any way.
Nigel West says
I did that in the past with a washing machine, dishwasher and tumble dryer – all on a two rate tariff. Very unpopular with the missus being restricted to washing clothes and dishes overnight. In fact for a young family with kids clothes too, good luck with that. For the hassle the savings were not worth the bother. Also, invariably ended up paying more for energy at peak times.
Also all these appliances should not be left unattended at night or during the day when house is empty due to the fire hazard risk being high for laundry appliances and dishwashers – regardless of the brand.
Frank Jalics says
Time of use pricing has been piloted, and it works. No need to dramatize with the “cut them off” BS that nobody has ever suggested to you. You have this biased assumption that nothing will change, and all change is bad. Rubbish. Once people have a reason to shift their load, they will find ways over time, probably by buying things that can do it for them automatically.
Nigel West says
You have a biased assumption that people will be happy with price gouging by suppliers to stop them using energy when the wind is not blowing. That’s as good as cutting someone off, particularly the poor who would not be able to afford to heat their homes when energy prices were very high. The politics of that would be explosive.
Reliable energy supplies are an essential service and people should not be dictated to over when they may use electricity.
Helmut Frik says
There is abig difference between high prices and being cut off.
There is no need to charge a alomst full car battery at high prices, or to heat a already warm hose at the same time, cold storage buildings are insulated enough to be cut off power for many days up to weeks, and aluminium smelters in germany already skip producing at high prices, while increasing production at low prices, like a lot of other energy intensive production too.
The power use which you don’t want to be switched off at any price is very low, and there is always more than enough power production in large grids to supply this.
But it does not fit for those who want to sell expensive nuclear power, so they must deny the possibility to transfer power by grids or the existence of dynamic loads at any costs.
Nigel West says
Ignoring commercial and industrial consumers who are already paid to switch off at peak times, time of use pricing can work by lowering peak demand to avoid running expensive marginal cost plant. But there is adequate generation capacity to cover peak demand, it’s just shifting around demand peaks to optimise the use of reliable capacity.
However proposing time of use pricing to deal with periods in the winter when only c. 10% of renewables capacity is generating is effectively rationing by stealth and only achievable by making prices so high that electricity becomes unaffordable – starting with the poorest first.
If that were to occur many would simply buy a petrol generator to avoid being price gouged. Don’t bother suggesting batteries as they are way too expensive for homes in the northern hemisphere.
N.B.. try making a reasoned argument rather than resorting to words like BS and rubbish.
Helmut Frik says
Well in germany wind power produced well above jearly average this january. And using dynamic loads to remove peaks of residual load is exactly the same as reducing peaks of complete load.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Jerry:
we won’t need 100% back up as the anti renewable folk tell us
There are lots of power uses half a day that require baseload: all offices with their computers, printers, scanners,… Restaurants, at home cooking (usually at peak moment just after sunset in winter…), road lights after dark,…
Some factories can reduce their demand (I was working for a chlorine electrolyses plant which could go down from 132 MWto 42 MW use) during a restricted time period (at the cost of production).
All together, you may reduce demand at peak times with some 10% by diverting household machines to low demand times and letting some industrial users reduce their demand during peak hours. Still you need some 90% of peak use for cases that there are no intermittent power suppliers like wind and solar. That may be (pumped) hydro, batteries,… if available or fossil fuel / nuclear supplied power…
I don’t have anything against renewables, I only don’t underestimate the problems involved with intermittent power that are far from solved and the real costs for the consumers today and in the near future.
Nigel West says
Pumped hydro alone on the scale needed in Europe to deal with lulls in renewable output would be prohibitively expensive.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Agreed! One need hundreds of times the current pumped storage capacity in Europe, to get what is needed when there is little wind and no sun at peak use in winter… Hydro dams can be of help too, but all together there is not enough available land for all the storage needed…
Helmut Frik says
No, not if you span whole Europe and North Arfrica with a strong grid. Existing Hydropowerstations are not expensive, and more storage is not needed with this kind of grid size.
Nigel West says
That is not so according to Gregor Czisch’s study which you often quote to back up your claims! Czisch said lulls in wind/solar output should be dealt with using more pumped storage/hydro.
The costs of which would be prohibitively (many trillions of Euros for new pumped storage capacity on the scale required) expensive for Europe and more importantly not required in a sensible world with a mix of generation sources, not exclusively renewables.
Helmut Frik says
If you would read the study, you would find it proposes to expand the grid to maximum possible size which is possible in the researched area (Europe, north Africa) and then does not even use the existing hydropower capacity when optimising costs.
Nigel West says
You can’t be serious, without matching back-up generation in Europe, do you really think Europe would accept relying on N. African solar for it’s power supplies! BTW in Algiers, in December, sunset is 16:31 GMT, and it happens fast at that latitude – off goes solar PV – so not much use anyway.
Also who in Europe would invest billions in the N. African desert. Not to mention the horrendous security issues with trying to protect those assets spread across 8 N. African countries. Terrorists would be forever severing transmission connections.
Europe might have to station an army to protect them across Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad , Sudan……. that would be popular I am sure!
Helmut Frik says
Europe already relies on North Africa/Mena and Russia for it’s power supply today, so that’s nothing new.
But the following things would change:
– the average time till a blackout would increase
– the blackout would most likely happen in North-Africa/Middle east first
– There are more opfions to avoid a blackout with some minor inconveniences
– any blackout would have a verly limited time, while today it could have infinite length.
And the countries in North Africa already invest in generation. Ant they will surely protect the power generation which supplies their countries without any advice or money from europe. It’s about exchanging surplus power in both directions.
Imagine they today produce oil and gas to supply europe without any european military occupation there, by free will. I know this is hard to imagine for some peolpe.
Nigel West says
I knew you would say that. Oil and gas comes via many independent routes by pipelines and tankers to Europe from all over the world. It can also be stored in large quantities in Europe to provide a buffer.
As you know, Electricity is not the same, enough could not be stored cost effectively in the vast quantities needed to protect Europe from blackouts in a near 100% renewables scenario. You should accept that a vast build of pumped storage capacity would be needed – 4 x Norway’s capacity to secure Europe’s electricity supplies.
In addition the costs of building the N. African assets is also prohibitive at $500bn – likely to be higher.
Helmut Frik says
Difference is: electricity is only needed from other places under very speical weather conditions, which are not present at most of the time, and electric energy can also be stored in products as heat, etc, and imported from many many directions and many many countries, about the same number of countries which export Oil or LNG. Switching the supply of Oil or LNG is not possible for a country in the size of Germany from one year to another, since the other countries do not have enough spare production capacity for Oil or Gas. So if the whole region of North Arfica, Middle east and Russia would stop any export of Oil and Gas, as you suppose for electricity, blackou for Germany (and UK as well) would come within a short time and remain permanently.
Nigel West says
UK’s position is no blackout is acceptable so very sensibly will have a mix of secure generation sources, not just renewables which Germany seems to be heading for. Germany’s growing issue with relying on Russian gas will be of their own making if they persist with closing nukes prematurely.
They should expand gas storage, and Europe expand LNG import facilities. That’s what the UK has done to deal with declining North Sea gas. Indeed LNG could be landed at the UK’s new import facilities then transferred to western Europe via pipelines.
Helmut Frik says
This is your personal position. Germany already has the largest gas storages, from which it supplies neighboring countries during winter.
And relying on gas with more renewables? there is no cause for this assuption. Because extension of renewable generation reduces the amount of hours where residual load is needed, the same effects happens by the extension of interconnectors in all directions. So the amut of TWh of residual load is decreasing. The generation capacity of biomass in germany is also being uincreased without increasing the overall production of biogas, this way reducing the needed fossil residual load further. There is also plenty of unused LNG capacity in Rotterdam, Genua &Co. No need for expansion. What would be usefull is to accelerate the reafe of insulation of buildings, and reduce fuel consumption in traffic. thats where things don’t go forward as fast as they should. Electricity sector is far from being any kind of problem.
Nigel West says
Some argue that biomass is not really a true renewable energy source.
I don’t believe Germany will ever be able to wean itself off gas and achieve near 100% renewables. The big c. 50GW lignite fleet really couldn’t be closed without gas fired CCGT replacements.
Helmut Frik says
You need 90% only if you operate without a grid of significant size. The more you increase grid size the further this number drops in the direction of zero.
Also the 10% are true only for small price deviations, and without sector coupeling with transportation and heating.
Heating in well insulated buildings can be shifted, the better the insulation and the more mass is inside the building, the longer time you can shift heating.
Most colling uses can use latent storage enabeling it to be shifted form many hours up to days.
Loading BEV can be shifted for days for usual people (so most of the cars most of the time) to times when it is suitable. People are already used to look for low prices for fueling, price differences for electric power will be even bigger.
Also for remaining residual loads you do not need overly expensive baseload generation, which is just returning profit when running 8000hours per year. For residual load you can accept high fuel costs for the last 10 or 100 hours per year, when capital costs of the systems are low. Which reduces costs per GW backup by 90% and more.
Nigel West says
Helmut, we’ve been here before. Your ever expanding grid arguments technically do not hold up. The lulls across Europe are too great to risk relying on renewables – discounting pumped hydro because it would be prohibitively expensive.
Agreed new buildings can be designed to be almost heat loss free. However much of the housing stock in the UK, and Europe, is old and cannot be insulated enough to go more than hour or so without any heating in winter.
EV charging and providing the huge increase in electricity generating capacity needed to switch to BEVs is another issue. Save to say a big switch would require many new power stations in the UK. Unless BEVs are equipped with huge batteries , which already are expensive, shifting charging is not the answer to renewables intermittancy. Also many EVs trying to charge in a narrow time window would add a big strain on distribution systems too. Smart systems can help manage the loading on distribution systems but that conflicts with people chasing the lowest price periods to charge their EVs. If I bought an EV and found that I couldn’t use it for days as the network was too over stressed to charge it, or because the wind wasn’t blowing and power prices were just too high, I would be very annoyed.
Helmut Frik says
Proove your claims. Existing data from renewable power generation tells a different story.
It is well known how much more generation power is needed for buildings and BEV, its around 20% for traffic and 20-30 % for buildings. So not a serious problem. And if you forget charging your BEV because you wait for lower prices although higher prices ar predicted days ahead, I expect that your ICE car often stands at the roadside with empty tank because you waited too long for gas prices going lower.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Helmut, have a look at:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm
and ask for the overview of weeks 1 to 4:
from 5 to 9 January and 15-26 January, Germany’s wind and solar were producing 5-20% of installed solar (during a few hours) and less than 5% of installed wind capacity (40 MW solar, 50 MW wind) during all these days.
I have looked at the rest of Europe during the high pressure system that was then over most of Europe: same problem with exception of the most Western countries and North Scandinavia, each delivering 50-100% of full capacity.
Needed: a huge backup for over 90% of installed wind and solar power (either fossil, nuclear or storage) for at least 1-2 weeks in winter.
Or an enormous investment in both installed wind/solar capacity in every country and an enormous transport system capable of redistribution near 100% of European needs from groups of overcapacity to the rest of Europe…
Europe is currently not even completely connected for their own capacity by in/export for every individual country, several are below 10%, but the above scheme needs a 100 times larger connection grid…
I think that fossil backup will be the least expensive for now and far in the future…
Helmut Frik says
You just don’t see that 50-100% of existing nameplate capacity means a huge export of power from that region, when it is equiped to supply itself in average.
For germany prediction is around 200GW of wind power+200 GW of PV for future generation, with prices per kWh lower than neccesary today to keep a conventional pwoer supply alive. 50% for wind alone would mean then 40 GW exports at night, and about the same during the day due to PV, enough to power whole UK. 100 GW sould be enough then to power france and spain as well, althought there would be still significant pwoer generation even if ther would be a relative lull in the west. The same if the lull is in the middle of europe. You would also have found wind further in the east, and according generation data at these days.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Helmut,
You still underestimate what is necesssary for all of Europe with wind and sun under winter conditions with a high pressure system over most of Europe. In January, less than 10% of Europe had 100% nameplate capacity as real wind output, the rest between 0% and 20%. Average around 10%. As most wind is land based, the average capacity is 25%. If every country has 400% of peak capacity installed (assuming every country has the surface to do that), that would be in average sufficient to feed that country.
In the case of 10% of nameplate power for 90% of Europe, you still have 15% shortage over 90% of Europe.
That means that in 10% of Europe you must supply that shortage with 75% of its installed capacity, where 25% is needed for its own countries.
The 75% is good for the needs of ~50% of the rest of Europe, the rest needs to be installed as extra capacity in every country in Europe for in case that the shortage shifts from East to West or back and from North to South or back.
Thus in practice, one need (at least) a doubling of the average nameplate peak production in every country to supply whole Europe and besides that an increase of European wide interconnections to over 90% of total European peak use from uttermost West to uttermost East and from uttermost North to uttermost South.
I don’t think that makes economically sense and some means of huge storage is probably more economic, besides the increasing resistence to position windmills near urban and critical bird/bat habitat.
Pumped storage is only possible if there is a lower lake, which is not the case for most river dams. They can save water when there is a lot of wind and solar (e.g. Norway from Denmark and Germany) and supply it back when there is no sun and little wind (if they have the winter capacity for more countries). Good bussiness for Norway, less for German and Danish households, which pay for the difference in price…
Helmut Frik says
I could not find such a lull all over europe in available Data. We discussed it earlier for JAnuary 2017, and there what you describe did not happen.
And pumped storage is also used for nuclear power , but adding the price on the already higher nuclear power price. Which makes this model less atrective.
Frank Jalics says
Let me give you a good EV charging example. California. Their solar resources are cheap, and they have already added enough to make mid day rates off peak. They are adding a lot more solar. So, the best solution for them would be adding a bunch of chargers at work, for example, or wherever people drive to and park.
Also, the average person drives 30 miles a day. Tesla’s are all over 200 mile range and the Model S 100D is 335. The Bolt is 238. Several others are over 100, and the range keeps going up. You give people a financial reason, and enough will do it to change the load. It doesn’t need to be everybody.
Nigel West says
I agree California is in a good position, but not northern Europe. California has c. 20% solar utilisation and almost year round sun. Whereas Northern Europe has only c. 10% solar utilisation, and extended ‘dark’ periods in the winter. Solar not so good for charging EVs in the winter in northern Europe.
Helmut Frik says
But northern Europe has plenty of Wind in winter to charge anything you want, and in scandinavia a lot of hydropower to buffer anything.
And be aware that the last tenders for solar in Danmark (the one which was for germany and Danmark in PAralel came back with 5,38ct/kWh. Thats only about 30% above the fuel prices for hard coal power plants in the same region. So much lower than a coal power plant needs to operate in the longer run, and close to the price where it’s cheaper to build a solar power plant next to the coal power plant and let the fully manned coal power plant sit idle next to it. And prices for solar keep falling.
Naturally the coal power plant will not survive this in the longer run, because it will be much cheaper to get power from the grid when locally ther is not enough sun or wind. But it’s the point where the shift of economics should become obvious even to the most stupid.
Nigel West says
Ferdinand and others have clearly demonstrated to you, and to other renewables zealots, that a huge back-up will be needed if Germany persists with this near 100% renewables fantasy and tries to spread that green driven ideology throughout Europe. I think Germany and possibly The Netherlands would, if the German political climate remains unchanged, stand alone on a hugely expensive, pointless and dangerous aspiration in terms of security of energy supplies across Europe.
You know very well that there is insufficient hydro power in Norway to buffer the whole of Europe. Anyway it would need to be pumped storage which would require a massive and prohibitively expensive build programme across Europe.
Talking about charging BEVs is a diversion anyway because one should not discriminate and instead consider the full range of power demands. Save to say charging vehicles would be low priority at times when the wind is not blowing and the sun not shining in winter if there isn’t conventional back-up plant. Without it lights would go out and people would be shivering in the cold.
It doesn’t matter how cheap renewables now appears to be, Governments will simply procure new reliable conventional capacity as the UK has done through a capacity market or transmission operator reserve, if needed. That is likely to be CCGTs. Germany will likely do the same to replace reliable closing coal capacity .
Frank Jalics says
There is no difference between hydro and pumped hydro when they are producing. It only matters how much water you have behind them, and the output of those turbines. You save water by importing wind or solar.
Helmut Frik says
neither Ferdinand nor you have demonstrated anything. The situation in January showed that, while there was a lull in central europe, there was wind in the west, in the east, and in the north. Just as it was to be expected. All that’s needed is a grid to transport the power from outside the lull area into the lull area. Which exists, but is not strong enough today, so a upgrade is needed.
Which costs far less that the nuclear power option you prefere at any costs.
Frank Jalics says
Norway is like 97% hydro. Smells like opportunity to me. Upgrade the links, and the hydro turbines, and make money when the lull happens.
Nigel West says
Helmut, UK and France will never take such a huge risk relying on wind at the end of some wires, which may or may not be blowing, without having adequate reliable back-up generation.
So good luck Germany with that – the UK and France will not be playing ball.
Nigel West says
Frank, there is a very big difference in capability between conventional hydro and pumped storage hydro. I suggest you do some research.
Helmut Frik says
Well France is already on the way. Enough plans to expand wind and solar, and plans for new nuclear scapped.
By the way, the differences between normal hydro and pumped hydro are so big, that in a rare case where the Francis or KAplan turbine of a usual hydropower station had access to water all time at the low end, it was just neccesare to rewiire toe generator to run as motor in the other direction to change the hydropower station to pumped storage operation.
And here the official manual of KSB, how their irrigation pumps can be used as hydropower generator: https://www.ksb.com/blob/52176/0a900c00f0c898029d26eb58a41e307c/pumpe-als-turbine-data.pdf Naturally you can still use them for pumping as well. https://www.ksb.com/blob/52176/0a900c00f0c898029d26eb58a41e307c/pumpe-als-turbine-data.pdf
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Helmut, as Nigel already said, larger grids are of little help. In January we have had weeks with less than 10% average wind capacity (NOT nameplate!) in almost whole Europe under a high pressure system, with the exception of Ireland and North Scandinavia. Solar production was 10% of summer production for a few hours a day and zero at peak hours, which were after sunset Europe wide…
If you want to manage that, you need either 100% capacity for whole Europe in every group of countries at the high wind / solar side and 100% capacity in transport for all Europe’s use from countries with overcapacity to the rest of Europe with undercapacity. Or alternatively some form of storage capable of storing all Europe’s needs for weeks or even seasons…
I think that is still far away in the future and anyway extremely expensive…
BTW, I live in a house from 1958, was uninsulated, but later it got step by step insulated. The recycle time for such house renewing in average is around 50 years…
Nigel West says
Agreed.
BTW. In the UK old homes are not usually replaced as there is a shortage of housing and more are needed. Also old houses are often preferred to new ones.
Helmut Frik says
Well, if you look outside your europe consisting of the states bordering the north sea, you also find enough wind in January. Europe is a but bigger than this area in western europe. And the grids als span far over the borders of the european continent.
And your renovation of your house – as usual when taking a closer look, most of the cost you had have been costs for renovations you have to spend every 30 years or so anyway to proevent the house from collapsing due to rising damages. And the smallest part of costs will be the ones spent on the insolation itself.
Practically nobody renoates a house outside in one year, and adds insulation the next year, insulation is added when the outside of the house needs significant spendings anyway now or in near future.
Nigel West says
Helmut,
France has deferred plans for new nuclear as they do not need to build more currently. At the moment they plan to refurbish the existing fleet of nuclear stations as that is more cost effective than new nuclear.
The capability of a pumped storage hydro plant is very different to conventional run of the river hydro. Pumped storage can be cycled continually like a rechargeable battery. However, with conventional hydro once the head reservoir is empty recharging relies on river flow and rainfall which can take months.
You make a very good point, it is indeed rare for conventional hydro to have a reservoir at the base so it can’t be used for pumped storage.
Grid scale pumped storage uses much larger (e.g. 300MW machines in Dinorwig) fast acting purpose built machines than you have mentioned.
So if you thought run of the river conventional hydro can be converted easily and without huge costs to provide grid scale pumped storage hydro you also need to do some research.
Germany has hardly any pumped hydro too.
Furthermore, Norwegians are against converting their conventional hydro to pumped storage on environmental grounds. Even if it were possible to convert Norway to pumped storage hydro, at great cost, it would be a fraction of the capacity required to cover the ‘dunkelflaute’ times in a fantasy Europe of near 100% renewables .
Helmut Frik says
Nigel, you still do not understand….
France knwos when the existing nuclear peor plants will close down – with improvements which are neccesary to allow them to run till that date. And they know they will reduce their nuclear share and increase renewable installation.
there is now new nuclear capacity in sight in France, and the old is falling apart.
Nigel West says
Nonsense – which nuclear stations in France are ‘falling apart’? EDF would not allow that to happen, nor would ASN. Furthermore, EDF is maintaining their nuclear new build skills base by building Hinkley Point C. When the time comes replacement new nuclear plants will be built to replace closing plants. EDF’s strategy for replacements is the EPR-NM design and has sites earmarked for new stations to follow FA3.
Helmut Frik says
“EDF would not allow that to happen”- the cour de comptes calculates that EDF will need >6ct/kWh “not to let this happen. Which is more than new capacity needs elswhere – Non- nuclear capacity. What I see as “falling apart”.
EPR-NM is not a model available now, and nobody knows when it will really be available and at which costs, given the history of delays and cost overruns so far. And since EDF has problems to rais the finances to keep the existing fleet running and to build Hinkley point maybe, it is also unclear where the money should come from.
While so many things are unsure the expansion of wind and solar is progressing.
Nigel West says
Helmut your definition of ‘falling apart’ is ridiculous – even allowing for your first language not being English.
EDF/France will finance the reactor life extensions. It is better to life extend, including increases in output capacity, than build new nuclear.
The ‘Cour de Comptes’ has said the life extension costs will have little effect on nuclear generation production costs.
The EPR-NM design will be less complicated than the EPR and will be the design that replaces the French fleet in the 2020s. It will also be quicker and less costly to build than an EPR.
You are dreaming if you think France will not build more capacity to replace decommissioned plants.
France will not repeat Germany’s mistakes that have driven their domestic prices to twice those of France.
Helmut Frik says
Well, the prices neccesary to keep the existing fleet alive is already higher than the costs for new capacity with other production methods. Which means the chances to earn the investment back are about zero.
Which again means the chances to earn tha capital for a new nuclear fleet are also around zero.
The promis for the EPR was that it will produce power cheaper, and be more simple to build as the previous generation. Ther EPR-NM starts with the same promises, first point was to make the building bigger which again needs more concrete, steel and finances.
The amount of concrete nvested per MWh generated is already in the same ballpark for EPR and new wind generation. It drops for new wind capacity, and it seems to rise for new nuclear.
Seems like france will tender 15-20 TWh/year new renewable capacity this year. That’s a bit closer to hard facts than the EPR-NM.
Nigel West says
Helmut, you have no inside information on the EPR-NM, or first hand experience of the EPR. All you know is what you have read online, unlike myself who has worked on planning nuclear stations. You will not have known that on the EPR space on the nuclear island during construction is very tight so construction takes longer needing to be done sequentially. Bigger buildings would mean more work can be done in parallel and modular construction used. That all results in a much quicker construction time so lowers costs.
All your comments about nuclear are biased. I don’t think you understand the economics properly either in terms of how EDF with a portfolio of nuclear plants looks at the cost of refurbishment and new build.
BTW, France’s Court of Audit said, ‘the effect of France’s 2015 energy transition law requiring a reduction of nuclear output would likely be much greater (on raising power prices than the refurbishment costs). It also said, “no economic evaluation of the potential consequences have been conducted before the publication of the 2015 law”, and this was needed. So your back of the envelope numbers are irrelevant.