You should look at the effect increasing energy storage will have on TOU. As the demand to charge storage increases, they will take much (all?) of the surplus generation during low demand periods. This will raise the price and eliminate the number and duration where TOU will be offered.
Storage won't be filled for the sake of it. It has to make money, perhaps in part via subsidy. That means it has to be able to sell its net output for more than it cost to provide. Moreover, since larger surpluses are only available very occasionally they won't get fully utilised: there will still be quite a bit of curtailment because you can't justify having plant around that gets light use and can't really benefit from peak pricing (that gets taken out by the early to market installations: later ones can only hope to get shoulder prices at best.
Storage cannibalises its own revenues as capacity is expanded, and this is already happening in grid stabilisation markets. Making enough money to pay for the cost of the system requires not only a reasonable round trip margin per fill, but also frequent round trips: revenue is the product of the two. Once you have enough capacity to handle short term fluctuations the returns drop off sharply. Batteries currently manage about 2 round trips a day equivalent handling grid fluctuations and arbitrage between low overnight demand and peak demand hours. The next tranche of capacity will have to depend on slower turnover: the weekly pattern of lower demand at weekends, for example. Trying to make money out of providing backup for major weather spells or seasonal fluctuations will be more or less impossible.
Indeed and hence the share price collapse in Gresham House Energy and Harmony Energy which promised 8% yield and both have now cancelled dividends UFN.
That's probably true. However, the storage units will pay the reduced wholesale price and consumers will pick up the tab for the subsidies. Consumers will then pay again for the same energy when the batteries release it on to the grid.
I think that you will find that as more storage comes on stream, it will increase the demand during low periods which will reduce periods of low wholesale prices.
But you are correct, the consumer (or Taxpayer) will pay for it all as they do now.
Its going to need a lot lot lot more storage to soak up the surplus as we often see 20GWh constrained off between midnight and 0600 now let alone before the likes of Doggerbank are commissioned next year. Flat batteries can absorb about 3.5GWh currently but the rate they can do it is limited.
Few understand the amount of storage needed. There is an inverse relationship between the VRE Capacity and the required storage to reach 100% Low carbon.
As the mix between VRE & storage changes, Capex and LCOE are inversely proportional (higher Capex yields lower FCOE. The optimum is a blend that favors VRE to minimize Storage.
For the UK, to obtain 100% RE (using existing Nuclear & Hydro) requires ~ 233 GW of W&S PLUS 2,331 Gwh of storage! Total Capex of £1.5 Trillion. Of course, this is not viable so only a portion of this will ever be installed by 2050
Oh interesting chart and understand the previous post. Looking at chart it would be 2.3 TWh not 23.311? 2.3Twh is nearly fifty times more than we have now. Even with all planned or daft levels on the TEC register we would still only end up with about 150GWh.
As Hudson says in Aliens 2 "That's it man, game over man, game over! What the f**k are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
Correction: On 16 August 2024 this post was edited to remove a reference to renewables getting cheaper and to reflect recent increases in inflation and interest rates, which have led to a rise in the cost of renewable energy plants.
Historically the most effective TOUT was the Triad system that applied to large industrial consumers. A large portion of their annual bill was set by their grid consumption during the three highest national demand half hours over the winter, with the proviso that they had to be separated by at least 10 days. It could cost £10 to boil a 3kW kettle during the Triad periods. Of course, the actual periods could only be determined retrospectively, so there was a big effort to try to anticipate when these would occur. Some industries could turn down their operations for anticipated half hours, and so long as they were reasonably predictable the effect on production was small. But with mild winters even a slightly colder day might turn out to have an early evening Triad, so there was a lot more need for Triad avoidance in the form of behind the meter (diesel) generation, which was always needed for continuous plant operation where the flexibility to turn down demand was not available. In effect, the provision of peak power was largely subcontracted to industry.
In the end, the number of potential Triad days became frequent, and much of industry shut down anyway, so the system became ineffective - and has now been abandoned altogether. Of course, the use of diesel was not judged climate friendly either: unintended consequences.
I'm a stick-in-the-mud fuddy duddy technophobe who is always years behind the crowd (I've never owned a smartphone), so I prefer to just read stuff printed on parchment, but have made the leap to reading stuff on a computer screen. Also, the speakers don't work on my ageing laptop!
TOUTs are energy rationing via eco-Communist price controls, plain and simple. Weather-dependent renewables are never going to meet the demands of a 24-7 energy hungry technologically advanced society. Batteries are never going to be sufficient to 'plug the gap' between supply and demand when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, so TPTB are planning to reduce demand overall and tempt the unwary customer by offering a limited supply of 'free' energy when the wind IS blowing. They are also a convenient way to get more people to take up the offer of a 'free' spy-in-the-home energy rationing 'smart' meter which will eventually be used to power down your mandatory 'smart' EV charger and other household appliances, regardless of the half-hourly tariff rate. Price controls (TOUTs) are just the start to encourage people to use energy when the 'sustainable clean energy' grid is supplying it. Your heat pump WILL be powered down during that inevitable dead of winter Dunkelflaute and your washing machine WILL refuse to turn on whether you are wealthy enough to pay sky high energy prices or not. Because the grid will NOT be able to cope with demand, when 'renewables' are supplying diddly squat and interconnectors are not working either because the calm, cold weather conditions are continent-wide, and supplies of imported gas have run out.
You should read the FES2024, although Dunkelflaute is covered in FES2023
“TOUTs” have been the norm for all consumer goods since man first bartered excess agricultural produce, commonly termed “shopping around”. The general public are well versed with the cost/quality/service trade off and will frequently drive an extra mile to save pence per litre on petrol. TOUT are no different - do I really need to switch on the tumble dryer right now when it’ll be so much cheaper in two hours time - and with tech automating everything human intervention is minimal. My thermostat picks when to run the heat pump for me, I set the service level (temp) it minimises the cost of delivering that service
But Johnny's sports kit must be available to go to school. There are in practice only a few dedicated zealots who will live their lives by being obedient price responders. Which is why the government took powers to make it compulsory. In reality, DFS was a big failure, barely scratching at demand. See if you can spot the DFS incidents here:
But surely that’s because not many heat pumps yet? My thermostat automated responding to the DFS events so you hardly need to be a zealot as I did nothing, the tech did
My dad did his apprenticeship with a refrigeration company in the 1940’s and as a 9 year old (1971) he told me all about heat pumps as he wanted one to replace our oil boiler. I learnt about them at university in the 80’s then 15 years ago planning our new house, in an area with no gas supply, it was an obvious choice. I’m an absolute convert, wonderful things
My very advantageous fixed-price domestic energy tariff will soon be expiring. The new tariffs on offer from my supplier are all variable and more than double the cost of my current tariff and they are all (bar one, maybe) conditional on having a smart meter which I have so far managed to avoid.
I’m unclear what advantage, if any, a smart meter would give me under a TOUT regime. If I wanted to save a few quid, would I have to keep a constant watch on my meter to see how much I was burning and maybe turn off some appliances if it was too high? I can’t see myself doing that. I suspect that the real purpose of smart meters is to allow the supplier to turn you off completely.
You can’t have a TOUT without a SM. We cut our bills by 1/3 almost overnight switching to a TOUT and smart thermostat which ran the heating at the cheapest times
But as I discussed previously, you are simply freeloading off everyone else. Even though the market value of generation is low, other consumers pick up the full cost of the subsidies.
To provide a little counterweight: I have a smart meter and Intelligent Octopus Go tariff which at 23.4p/kWh during the day is more expensive than others, but at night between 23:30 and 05:30 is 6.7p/kWh. This is handy for the heat pump (I'm off the gas grid) and my EV which is charged entirely at home, otherwise any advantage is lost. The average fuel cost of the car is 2.6 pence per mile, seven times cheaper than my old petrol car which I still run, the economy of which is admittedly not good.
If you don't have an EV or battery storage (to take advantage of variable tariffs), I see no reason for you to join the happy smiling peasants with a smart meter, rejoicing in the miracle of the flexible Smart Grid, keeping within their quota of machine washes and hot meals.
But pretty soon we will all have heat pumps and EVs, and if we wait until a critical mass do before rolling out smart meters the task will be impossible. Then the great scandal will be than people can’t get smart meters and TOUTs
No, we won't all have heat pumps as they are incompatible with 99% of properties. I have several friends in the plumbing and heating business, and unless you have the physical space for one of these monstrosities, it ain't happening. We worked out it would cost us 60 grand to install one in our modest 4 bed house - that includes replacing all the pipes, radiators and flooring (we have wood floors). We don't have 60 grand to spare. So no, it's not happening. Every plumber we know is busy installing brand new gas boilers, with a 30 year life span (minimum).
Not bad if you have an EV or can heat your water during that period but for the majority no use at all which is why I resist all overtures from Octopus to have a so called upgarde meter so I can take advantage of this tarriff. As ive said Greg@Octopus more than once as all my energy is from renewables why are they charging so much in the first place just lower the prices.
Octopus ultimately have to play by the rules Ofgem set, so as long as wholesale prices are tied to gas and we don’t have nodal wholesale prices, prices will always remain high
No they don't they can establish PPAs with the windmills they already own at whatever price they want. They choose this path as it makes them money. After all they are owned by a fund management group never seen a philanthropic one of those.
Why can't we just have some honesty in this space. The fact is if you want to eliminate CO2 from electricity production its going to cost more to provide that electricity no ifs no buts. Oh and if you want to keep the lights on we will need to keep those CCGTs for several more decades if not forever but by all means keep looking for a storage solution that has the energy density of gas. Whatever we will be able to sleep tight knowing we've contributed 1% of the 100% the world needs to deliver.
Prices are not tied to gas so much, otherwise you would see a clear plateau in market prices representing the gas price. Now prices depend on demand destruction when supply is tight, the varying renewables subsidy schemes and curtailment payments entitlements when there is a wind/solar surplus, and interconnector arbitrage. Gas is now relatively rarely the price setter, especially as it is increasingly run to provide ancillary services rather than energy (i.e. there is an element of "must run" to keep the grid stable).
Not when the policy is enforced through forced entry and seizure of non-compliant devices. I certainly don't want some faceless bureaucrat deciding when I can turn my heating on.
I’m quite happy to outsource the turning on and off of my heating as long as it minimises my bills and hits service levels. You need to get with the times and stop shaking your fist at clouds
In respect of format I would say that as an alternative way to listen to what you write is ok but not as a substitute. One thing that this subject area always needs to really see the issue is the use of graphs and diagrams which you have deployed very usefully through your blogs. Anyhow its your time thats at stake and its important you keep up this work so you have to go with what sustains it.
I envisaged the audio/video content as a supplement, not a substitute. I don't like the way the Substack platform forces an article to be "podcast first" though.
So, my thinking is, I will keep the written articles as they are and publish the podcast episodes on a slightly delayed schedule and update each written article with a link to the podcast episode. I will endeavour to create each episode as video, with the charts embedded an explained in the audio voiceover. Just got my new microphone, so I will give it a go for next week's article.
Thank you David. The new format is interesting and I gave it a listen, but in the end, prefer to sit and read, so it's for others to enjoy.
Yes, the only freedom consumers have to adjust their electricity consumption is battery storage in the home or in an EV. Do we foresee smart heating controls that would enable power companies to adjust our thermostats?
Dave: "Please can we have it 1 degree warmer in here?"
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
OMG. My parents' generation suffered great privations caused by authoritarianism in the form of fascism. Now it's taken root in the House of Commons.
In my last working decade with domestic gas and heating, I was never in favour of smart heating controls that gave remote access, fearing Chinese hackers. I confess I didn't anticipate an enemy within.
That was exactly the feedback my daughter gave me. So, I have a microphone on order and will try personally narrating the next few articles and see where that takes us.
I wonder if anyone is able and willing to answer a question the answer to which has thus far proved impossible for me to discover. It may well be I have not asked the right question!
While I understand that at times of excess supply of generated electrical power it is relatively straightforward to reduce dispatchable generation to reduce supply but nuclear is not flexible in this timescale.
Then, as pointed out in the post, when there is excess wind generation the generation is 'curtailed' to reduce supply.
My question. Is it technically possible just to send excess wind generated electric supply to discharge to ground, in order to keep the grid and or distribution networks balanced? If it is why is it not done?
You may be interested in Terrapower's Natrium proposed nuclear reactor which adds a large thermal store and liquid sodium to transfer heat, to provide variable power output. I presume the aim is to have the nuclear reactor running flat out as per Tim's comment. https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/
It's not that nuclear can't be flexible. It's rather that very little of the cost of nuclear is in the nuclear fuel and nearly all of the cost is in just having the plant. So you've pretty much already paid for (or you've got to pay for) all the electricity a nuclear plant can produce running flat out during its whole lifespan. So turning down its output doesn't save any money. That's why it makes no sense for nuclear to fill in the gaps in wind or solar. Instead, it's better to just get rid of the intermittent generation and let nuclear do it all.
That is the thing, I don't know what the implications are! I was asking if it were technically possible as I know the great lengths the NGESO go to in order to balance the grid and keep it stable around 50Hz.
Clearly if it were possible one easy solution would be to build a fleet of nuclear plants that were producing peak demand with a small amount of Gas fired dispatchable capacity. Then when demand dropped below supply just discharge to earth!
I have been unable to find out why this is not possible. It would seem to me to be quicker to just have some discharge capacity to cope with the intermittent nature of the wind power. So that it discharged excess capacity in real time, thus keeping the grid balanced and secure.
Its more than possible to feather the turbine blades to reduce wind capture but thats not in the interests of the owners given the current system.
On frequency the ESO are legally obliged to maintain frequency between 49.8 and 50.2Hz used to be mainly worry about electric clocks (used to be two in the old grid control one on 50Hz and other fed off the mains so they new how far behind or in front it was to tweak frequency to get it aligned everyday) today too much other kit gets upset and with all the harmonics on the system it can actually cause serious overheating in things like transformers. Also todays grid has multiple intervention points as frequency falls to prevent system collapse so the ESO is having spend a whole lot more on frequency mgt than ever had to do with fossil fuel plants. In the past with coal fired stations they were basically run at a 100% steam production but only used about 95% in the steam turbine and then the set would adjust steam demand to maintain 50Hz on the shaft so it keeping frequency constant was very simple. In the event of a heavy fault you had a couple 100 tons of rotating inertia that could soak up initial frequency droop whilst the steam governors responded. Unreliables have none of this ability and they don't have to pay a penny towards the cost of providing it we do of course. Anyhow all we can do is share Davids good work far and wide and in the end we will hopefully see at least a recognition that NZ isn't going to happen anytime soon and it aint going to be cheap.
Feathering turbine blades isn't a practical way of stabilising wind output on timescales of a few seconds or less. Averaging of gusts across a wind farm, or indeed across several wind farms, can help a bit, but you can be left with large variations as is easily seen at the King Island dashboard on a modestly windy day or night. Batteries are now de rigeur for tidal turbines (even more flickery than wind) to help smooth output, and will be for larger solar farms too, where a dark cloud could act as the equivalent of a major generator trip. They are increasingly important for stabilising wind: see the large installation at Blackhillock, the substation for the Moray Firth wind farms for example. Variations in reactive power are another nightmare.
The main use of blade feathering is to discard excess energy in stronger winds once generator capacity is reached. Otherwise the generator would be wrecked.
Note its rural, long distance, low population density use. Cahora Basso hydro delivers its power across Mozambique and South Africa via HVDC: this can also operate with an earth return if one of the lines is lost.
If power is generated it has to be dissipated, which ultimately means converted to a different form of energy. For electricity that is typically kinetic energy (motors) and heat (most of your appliances and lighting), sometimes via temporary conversion to chemical energy (e.g. a battery for your phone). If you plug the output and return into the ground next to each other you will have a short circuit, which will blow your equipment up, burning out the generator.
If you throw the circuit breakers then of course what you get is curtailment. However, there is still wind driving the turbine blades and sun creating a voltage across PV junctions. The blades must be feathered and perhaps braked. The circuit breakers for the PV need to be in the primary circuit upstream of the inverters. Wrongly connected, the power must be dissipated in the inverters which overheat. Happened to a friend who spent over a decade arguing with insurers after the resultant house fire.
This is a bit beyond my limited understanding. So, if you have the time and patience to indulge me are you able to offer me some more information on this?
I think I understand what you are stating but only to a point. I grasp that without the demand no current flows[?] It is the bit about too much generation capacity I am failing to grasp.
On a very simply basis, if there is X demand and one turbine spinning generating power that is fulfilling X demand but is able to produce X and Y levels of supply. In a situation where demand X is met by supply X current flows to satisfy that demand. By if demand X drops but the turbine is still powered to the same level is this then excess generating capacity? If so, what happens?
It is my understanding that when this happens on the grid the speed increases from 50Hz and the revers occurs if demand exceeds supply.
Do you have a simpler way to explain what is going on when you say there is not "too much electricity, just too much generating capacity"?
Energy storage is the standard answer, in the form of, for example, pumped hydro, batteries, compressed air or hydrogen. The learned members of the Royal Society are big on the last one. Energy storage is needed to make intermittent wind and solar behave like dispatchable generation, so should be included in the cost of these sources. The energy storage currently used is gas plants (called "peaker plants" by our US cousins), as can be seen by looking at the state of the grid on www.gridwatch.co.uk (ccgt = combined cycle gas turbine). The fact that gas plant already existed has enabled wind and solar to freeload. Everything is cheap if you ignore the costs.
Thank you for taking the time to provide me with a succinct and understandable answer. I have been asking this for the best part of 3 years but I have either not framed my question correct [highly likely] or I have asked the wrong people!
I wonder if anyone is able and willing to answer a question the answer to which has thus far proved impossible for me to discover. It may well be I have not asked the right question!
While I understand that at times of excess supply of generated electrical power it is relatively straightforward to reduce dispatchable generation to reduce supply but nuclear is not flexible in this timescale.
Then, as pointed out in the post, excess wind generation is 'curtailed' to reduce supply.
My question. Is it technically possible just to send excess wind generated electric supply to discharge to ground, in order to keep the grid and or distribution networks balanced? If it is why is it not done?
Technically it is possible but would have to be via a big resistor to keep within the power rating of the turbine. However, what we really need is for windmills to be called onto the grid in merit order when they have output on offer which i know isn't pure dispatchable but nevertheless it allows the ESO to call on the generation the system needs. Now the windmills just say they will be generating X and in the full knowledge, especially in Scotland, that the transmission system won't be able to take the power so will get constrained off and leave the ESO to find the power from CCGTs. We already have too many windmills North of the B3 boundary and everyone added now before Eastern DC Links are built just exacerbates the problem and pushes up the BM bill further. So i would certainly say there is case to offer Scotland a TOUT tariff as thats where the excess is and thats where the wind is. In E&W there is nothing wrong with bringing back an old style economy 7 tariff say 2300-0500 although not sure many people have storage heaters anymore but if the price was more competitive than gas i would use the immersion heater on the hot water tank.
These days the system seems to be in difficulty, and is running predominantly on diesel. But when it was very windy and gusty, the resistor was used to help balance the power along with rapid variations in diesel output and the attached flywheel system and small battery (the original Vanadium Flow battery caught fire). Roger Andrews analysed the system based on some excellent data scraping work by others here:
I like the energy dashboard for King Island simply shows thats when its dark and not windy all the heavy lifting is being done by diesel! I could just about tolerate renewables being part of the energy mix and even pay a bit more as long as numpty Millibrain acknowledges that we need to keep CCGTs and that if there is any gas left under the UK we should exploit it.
Tip: record in a room with soft furnishings, carpet and drawn curtains to reduce echoes/shrill sound. Make sure you are undisturbed, including by exterior noise! If you are doing video of yourself as well look for some hints on studio/portrait lighting and choice of background. Lights will need to be above head level, probably with a slightly stronger light on one side than the other to create natural shadows. Reflectors can help (a white pillowcase is a simple one).
You should look at the effect increasing energy storage will have on TOU. As the demand to charge storage increases, they will take much (all?) of the surplus generation during low demand periods. This will raise the price and eliminate the number and duration where TOU will be offered.
Storage won't be filled for the sake of it. It has to make money, perhaps in part via subsidy. That means it has to be able to sell its net output for more than it cost to provide. Moreover, since larger surpluses are only available very occasionally they won't get fully utilised: there will still be quite a bit of curtailment because you can't justify having plant around that gets light use and can't really benefit from peak pricing (that gets taken out by the early to market installations: later ones can only hope to get shoulder prices at best.
Storage cannibalises its own revenues as capacity is expanded, and this is already happening in grid stabilisation markets. Making enough money to pay for the cost of the system requires not only a reasonable round trip margin per fill, but also frequent round trips: revenue is the product of the two. Once you have enough capacity to handle short term fluctuations the returns drop off sharply. Batteries currently manage about 2 round trips a day equivalent handling grid fluctuations and arbitrage between low overnight demand and peak demand hours. The next tranche of capacity will have to depend on slower turnover: the weekly pattern of lower demand at weekends, for example. Trying to make money out of providing backup for major weather spells or seasonal fluctuations will be more or less impossible.
Indeed and hence the share price collapse in Gresham House Energy and Harmony Energy which promised 8% yield and both have now cancelled dividends UFN.
That's probably true. However, the storage units will pay the reduced wholesale price and consumers will pick up the tab for the subsidies. Consumers will then pay again for the same energy when the batteries release it on to the grid.
I think that you will find that as more storage comes on stream, it will increase the demand during low periods which will reduce periods of low wholesale prices.
But you are correct, the consumer (or Taxpayer) will pay for it all as they do now.
Its going to need a lot lot lot more storage to soak up the surplus as we often see 20GWh constrained off between midnight and 0600 now let alone before the likes of Doggerbank are commissioned next year. Flat batteries can absorb about 3.5GWh currently but the rate they can do it is limited.
Few understand the amount of storage needed. There is an inverse relationship between the VRE Capacity and the required storage to reach 100% Low carbon.
As the mix between VRE & storage changes, Capex and LCOE are inversely proportional (higher Capex yields lower FCOE. The optimum is a blend that favors VRE to minimize Storage.
For the UK, to obtain 100% RE (using existing Nuclear & Hydro) requires ~ 233 GW of W&S PLUS 2,331 Gwh of storage! Total Capex of £1.5 Trillion. Of course, this is not viable so only a portion of this will ever be installed by 2050
If you are interested, you can find a full explanation here: http://www.goinggreencanada.ca/VRE_Storage_Assessment_UK.png
Oh interesting chart and understand the previous post. Looking at chart it would be 2.3 TWh not 23.311? 2.3Twh is nearly fifty times more than we have now. Even with all planned or daft levels on the TEC register we would still only end up with about 150GWh.
As Hudson says in Aliens 2 "That's it man, game over man, game over! What the f**k are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
Yep, s*d the poor written all over it.
In case you missed it:
We have a victory over the BBC!!
Correction: On 16 August 2024 this post was edited to remove a reference to renewables getting cheaper and to reflect recent increases in inflation and interest rates, which have led to a rise in the cost of renewable energy plants.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-69122757/page/2
Have they written to you yet?
Historically the most effective TOUT was the Triad system that applied to large industrial consumers. A large portion of their annual bill was set by their grid consumption during the three highest national demand half hours over the winter, with the proviso that they had to be separated by at least 10 days. It could cost £10 to boil a 3kW kettle during the Triad periods. Of course, the actual periods could only be determined retrospectively, so there was a big effort to try to anticipate when these would occur. Some industries could turn down their operations for anticipated half hours, and so long as they were reasonably predictable the effect on production was small. But with mild winters even a slightly colder day might turn out to have an early evening Triad, so there was a lot more need for Triad avoidance in the form of behind the meter (diesel) generation, which was always needed for continuous plant operation where the flexibility to turn down demand was not available. In effect, the provision of peak power was largely subcontracted to industry.
In the end, the number of potential Triad days became frequent, and much of industry shut down anyway, so the system became ineffective - and has now been abandoned altogether. Of course, the use of diesel was not judged climate friendly either: unintended consequences.
David,
Some thoughts on the issue.
https://www.therightinsight.org/Grid-Load-Shaping
https://www.therightinsight.org/The-Internet-of-Things
Hi David,
I'm a stick-in-the-mud fuddy duddy technophobe who is always years behind the crowd (I've never owned a smartphone), so I prefer to just read stuff printed on parchment, but have made the leap to reading stuff on a computer screen. Also, the speakers don't work on my ageing laptop!
TOUTs are energy rationing via eco-Communist price controls, plain and simple. Weather-dependent renewables are never going to meet the demands of a 24-7 energy hungry technologically advanced society. Batteries are never going to be sufficient to 'plug the gap' between supply and demand when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, so TPTB are planning to reduce demand overall and tempt the unwary customer by offering a limited supply of 'free' energy when the wind IS blowing. They are also a convenient way to get more people to take up the offer of a 'free' spy-in-the-home energy rationing 'smart' meter which will eventually be used to power down your mandatory 'smart' EV charger and other household appliances, regardless of the half-hourly tariff rate. Price controls (TOUTs) are just the start to encourage people to use energy when the 'sustainable clean energy' grid is supplying it. Your heat pump WILL be powered down during that inevitable dead of winter Dunkelflaute and your washing machine WILL refuse to turn on whether you are wealthy enough to pay sky high energy prices or not. Because the grid will NOT be able to cope with demand, when 'renewables' are supplying diddly squat and interconnectors are not working either because the calm, cold weather conditions are continent-wide, and supplies of imported gas have run out.
You should read the FES2024, although Dunkelflaute is covered in FES2023
“TOUTs” have been the norm for all consumer goods since man first bartered excess agricultural produce, commonly termed “shopping around”. The general public are well versed with the cost/quality/service trade off and will frequently drive an extra mile to save pence per litre on petrol. TOUT are no different - do I really need to switch on the tumble dryer right now when it’ll be so much cheaper in two hours time - and with tech automating everything human intervention is minimal. My thermostat picks when to run the heat pump for me, I set the service level (temp) it minimises the cost of delivering that service
But Johnny's sports kit must be available to go to school. There are in practice only a few dedicated zealots who will live their lives by being obedient price responders. Which is why the government took powers to make it compulsory. In reality, DFS was a big failure, barely scratching at demand. See if you can spot the DFS incidents here:
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Generation-jan-2023-1722888879.3157.png
You can see how irrelevant they were.
But surely that’s because not many heat pumps yet? My thermostat automated responding to the DFS events so you hardly need to be a zealot as I did nothing, the tech did
You need to be a zealot (and masochist) to install a heat pump.
My dad did his apprenticeship with a refrigeration company in the 1940’s and as a 9 year old (1971) he told me all about heat pumps as he wanted one to replace our oil boiler. I learnt about them at university in the 80’s then 15 years ago planning our new house, in an area with no gas supply, it was an obvious choice. I’m an absolute convert, wonderful things
My very advantageous fixed-price domestic energy tariff will soon be expiring. The new tariffs on offer from my supplier are all variable and more than double the cost of my current tariff and they are all (bar one, maybe) conditional on having a smart meter which I have so far managed to avoid.
I’m unclear what advantage, if any, a smart meter would give me under a TOUT regime. If I wanted to save a few quid, would I have to keep a constant watch on my meter to see how much I was burning and maybe turn off some appliances if it was too high? I can’t see myself doing that. I suspect that the real purpose of smart meters is to allow the supplier to turn you off completely.
You can’t have a TOUT without a SM. We cut our bills by 1/3 almost overnight switching to a TOUT and smart thermostat which ran the heating at the cheapest times
You chose a very expensive heating method. Cutting your bill from extortionate to merely excruciating may seem like a win to you.
The house consumes what it was designed to consume in kWh of heat, irrespective of the method of delivery
But as I discussed previously, you are simply freeloading off everyone else. Even though the market value of generation is low, other consumers pick up the full cost of the subsidies.
But everyone can do it, and then the market will adjust
To provide a little counterweight: I have a smart meter and Intelligent Octopus Go tariff which at 23.4p/kWh during the day is more expensive than others, but at night between 23:30 and 05:30 is 6.7p/kWh. This is handy for the heat pump (I'm off the gas grid) and my EV which is charged entirely at home, otherwise any advantage is lost. The average fuel cost of the car is 2.6 pence per mile, seven times cheaper than my old petrol car which I still run, the economy of which is admittedly not good.
If you don't have an EV or battery storage (to take advantage of variable tariffs), I see no reason for you to join the happy smiling peasants with a smart meter, rejoicing in the miracle of the flexible Smart Grid, keeping within their quota of machine washes and hot meals.
But pretty soon we will all have heat pumps and EVs, and if we wait until a critical mass do before rolling out smart meters the task will be impossible. Then the great scandal will be than people can’t get smart meters and TOUTs
No, we won't all have heat pumps as they are incompatible with 99% of properties. I have several friends in the plumbing and heating business, and unless you have the physical space for one of these monstrosities, it ain't happening. We worked out it would cost us 60 grand to install one in our modest 4 bed house - that includes replacing all the pipes, radiators and flooring (we have wood floors). We don't have 60 grand to spare. So no, it's not happening. Every plumber we know is busy installing brand new gas boilers, with a 30 year life span (minimum).
Good luck!
No we won't. That's pure fantasy.
Not bad if you have an EV or can heat your water during that period but for the majority no use at all which is why I resist all overtures from Octopus to have a so called upgarde meter so I can take advantage of this tarriff. As ive said Greg@Octopus more than once as all my energy is from renewables why are they charging so much in the first place just lower the prices.
Octopus ultimately have to play by the rules Ofgem set, so as long as wholesale prices are tied to gas and we don’t have nodal wholesale prices, prices will always remain high
No they don't they can establish PPAs with the windmills they already own at whatever price they want. They choose this path as it makes them money. After all they are owned by a fund management group never seen a philanthropic one of those.
Why can't we just have some honesty in this space. The fact is if you want to eliminate CO2 from electricity production its going to cost more to provide that electricity no ifs no buts. Oh and if you want to keep the lights on we will need to keep those CCGTs for several more decades if not forever but by all means keep looking for a storage solution that has the energy density of gas. Whatever we will be able to sleep tight knowing we've contributed 1% of the 100% the world needs to deliver.
Prices are not tied to gas so much, otherwise you would see a clear plateau in market prices representing the gas price. Now prices depend on demand destruction when supply is tight, the varying renewables subsidy schemes and curtailment payments entitlements when there is a wind/solar surplus, and interconnector arbitrage. Gas is now relatively rarely the price setter, especially as it is increasingly run to provide ancillary services rather than energy (i.e. there is an element of "must run" to keep the grid stable).
There's provision for that in the Energy Act 2023 and provision to control "smart" domestic appliances, heating, chargers and batteries.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/criminalising-net-zero-disobedience
That’s a good thing, surely, as it’ll make things simpler for people
Not when the policy is enforced through forced entry and seizure of non-compliant devices. I certainly don't want some faceless bureaucrat deciding when I can turn my heating on.
I’m quite happy to outsource the turning on and off of my heating as long as it minimises my bills and hits service levels. You need to get with the times and stop shaking your fist at clouds
You have a very dim view of our democracy. Why on earth would that ever happen?
Because they are the enforcement provisions written in to the Energy Act.
In respect of format I would say that as an alternative way to listen to what you write is ok but not as a substitute. One thing that this subject area always needs to really see the issue is the use of graphs and diagrams which you have deployed very usefully through your blogs. Anyhow its your time thats at stake and its important you keep up this work so you have to go with what sustains it.
I envisaged the audio/video content as a supplement, not a substitute. I don't like the way the Substack platform forces an article to be "podcast first" though.
So, my thinking is, I will keep the written articles as they are and publish the podcast episodes on a slightly delayed schedule and update each written article with a link to the podcast episode. I will endeavour to create each episode as video, with the charts embedded an explained in the audio voiceover. Just got my new microphone, so I will give it a go for next week's article.
Thank you David. The new format is interesting and I gave it a listen, but in the end, prefer to sit and read, so it's for others to enjoy.
Yes, the only freedom consumers have to adjust their electricity consumption is battery storage in the home or in an EV. Do we foresee smart heating controls that would enable power companies to adjust our thermostats?
Dave: "Please can we have it 1 degree warmer in here?"
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Excellent!!
Yup, covered here:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/criminalising-net-zero-disobedience
OMG. My parents' generation suffered great privations caused by authoritarianism in the form of fascism. Now it's taken root in the House of Commons.
In my last working decade with domestic gas and heating, I was never in favour of smart heating controls that gave remote access, fearing Chinese hackers. I confess I didn't anticipate an enemy within.
Some people (like me) won’t listen to synthesised narration.
Needs the Hawking voice!
That was exactly the feedback my daughter gave me. So, I have a microphone on order and will try personally narrating the next few articles and see where that takes us.
Why do I doubt the people behind this plan don't care about consumers, especially ones that are also producers, such as industrial facilities?
I wonder if anyone is able and willing to answer a question the answer to which has thus far proved impossible for me to discover. It may well be I have not asked the right question!
While I understand that at times of excess supply of generated electrical power it is relatively straightforward to reduce dispatchable generation to reduce supply but nuclear is not flexible in this timescale.
Then, as pointed out in the post, when there is excess wind generation the generation is 'curtailed' to reduce supply.
My question. Is it technically possible just to send excess wind generated electric supply to discharge to ground, in order to keep the grid and or distribution networks balanced? If it is why is it not done?
You may be interested in Terrapower's Natrium proposed nuclear reactor which adds a large thermal store and liquid sodium to transfer heat, to provide variable power output. I presume the aim is to have the nuclear reactor running flat out as per Tim's comment. https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/
It's not that nuclear can't be flexible. It's rather that very little of the cost of nuclear is in the nuclear fuel and nearly all of the cost is in just having the plant. So you've pretty much already paid for (or you've got to pay for) all the electricity a nuclear plant can produce running flat out during its whole lifespan. So turning down its output doesn't save any money. That's why it makes no sense for nuclear to fill in the gaps in wind or solar. Instead, it's better to just get rid of the intermittent generation and let nuclear do it all.
I think it's easier to simply turn them off. If it's a big wind farm, where would all the heat go if you just sent the output to ground.
That is the thing, I don't know what the implications are! I was asking if it were technically possible as I know the great lengths the NGESO go to in order to balance the grid and keep it stable around 50Hz.
Clearly if it were possible one easy solution would be to build a fleet of nuclear plants that were producing peak demand with a small amount of Gas fired dispatchable capacity. Then when demand dropped below supply just discharge to earth!
I have been unable to find out why this is not possible. It would seem to me to be quicker to just have some discharge capacity to cope with the intermittent nature of the wind power. So that it discharged excess capacity in real time, thus keeping the grid balanced and secure.
Its more than possible to feather the turbine blades to reduce wind capture but thats not in the interests of the owners given the current system.
On frequency the ESO are legally obliged to maintain frequency between 49.8 and 50.2Hz used to be mainly worry about electric clocks (used to be two in the old grid control one on 50Hz and other fed off the mains so they new how far behind or in front it was to tweak frequency to get it aligned everyday) today too much other kit gets upset and with all the harmonics on the system it can actually cause serious overheating in things like transformers. Also todays grid has multiple intervention points as frequency falls to prevent system collapse so the ESO is having spend a whole lot more on frequency mgt than ever had to do with fossil fuel plants. In the past with coal fired stations they were basically run at a 100% steam production but only used about 95% in the steam turbine and then the set would adjust steam demand to maintain 50Hz on the shaft so it keeping frequency constant was very simple. In the event of a heavy fault you had a couple 100 tons of rotating inertia that could soak up initial frequency droop whilst the steam governors responded. Unreliables have none of this ability and they don't have to pay a penny towards the cost of providing it we do of course. Anyhow all we can do is share Davids good work far and wide and in the end we will hopefully see at least a recognition that NZ isn't going to happen anytime soon and it aint going to be cheap.
Feathering turbine blades isn't a practical way of stabilising wind output on timescales of a few seconds or less. Averaging of gusts across a wind farm, or indeed across several wind farms, can help a bit, but you can be left with large variations as is easily seen at the King Island dashboard on a modestly windy day or night. Batteries are now de rigeur for tidal turbines (even more flickery than wind) to help smooth output, and will be for larger solar farms too, where a dark cloud could act as the equivalent of a major generator trip. They are increasingly important for stabilising wind: see the large installation at Blackhillock, the substation for the Moray Firth wind farms for example. Variations in reactive power are another nightmare.
The main use of blade feathering is to discard excess energy in stronger winds once generator capacity is reached. Otherwise the generator would be wrecked.
There is this system (also in parts of Africa and Australia):
https://www.engineeringnz.org/programmes/heritage/heritage-records/single-wire-earth-return-swer/
Note its rural, long distance, low population density use. Cahora Basso hydro delivers its power across Mozambique and South Africa via HVDC: this can also operate with an earth return if one of the lines is lost.
If power is generated it has to be dissipated, which ultimately means converted to a different form of energy. For electricity that is typically kinetic energy (motors) and heat (most of your appliances and lighting), sometimes via temporary conversion to chemical energy (e.g. a battery for your phone). If you plug the output and return into the ground next to each other you will have a short circuit, which will blow your equipment up, burning out the generator.
The amount of specialist knowledge on these substack boards is outstanding and so helpful, thank you.
Now I know it can't be done and the reason why! Conservation of energy is a big part!
Unless there is a load/demand current isn’t produced, so there is never too much electricity, just too much generating capacity
If you throw the circuit breakers then of course what you get is curtailment. However, there is still wind driving the turbine blades and sun creating a voltage across PV junctions. The blades must be feathered and perhaps braked. The circuit breakers for the PV need to be in the primary circuit upstream of the inverters. Wrongly connected, the power must be dissipated in the inverters which overheat. Happened to a friend who spent over a decade arguing with insurers after the resultant house fire.
This is a bit beyond my limited understanding. So, if you have the time and patience to indulge me are you able to offer me some more information on this?
I think I understand what you are stating but only to a point. I grasp that without the demand no current flows[?] It is the bit about too much generation capacity I am failing to grasp.
On a very simply basis, if there is X demand and one turbine spinning generating power that is fulfilling X demand but is able to produce X and Y levels of supply. In a situation where demand X is met by supply X current flows to satisfy that demand. By if demand X drops but the turbine is still powered to the same level is this then excess generating capacity? If so, what happens?
It is my understanding that when this happens on the grid the speed increases from 50Hz and the revers occurs if demand exceeds supply.
Do you have a simpler way to explain what is going on when you say there is not "too much electricity, just too much generating capacity"?
Thx
Energy storage is the standard answer, in the form of, for example, pumped hydro, batteries, compressed air or hydrogen. The learned members of the Royal Society are big on the last one. Energy storage is needed to make intermittent wind and solar behave like dispatchable generation, so should be included in the cost of these sources. The energy storage currently used is gas plants (called "peaker plants" by our US cousins), as can be seen by looking at the state of the grid on www.gridwatch.co.uk (ccgt = combined cycle gas turbine). The fact that gas plant already existed has enabled wind and solar to freeload. Everything is cheap if you ignore the costs.
Thank you for taking the time to provide me with a succinct and understandable answer. I have been asking this for the best part of 3 years but I have either not framed my question correct [highly likely] or I have asked the wrong people!
I wonder if anyone is able and willing to answer a question the answer to which has thus far proved impossible for me to discover. It may well be I have not asked the right question!
While I understand that at times of excess supply of generated electrical power it is relatively straightforward to reduce dispatchable generation to reduce supply but nuclear is not flexible in this timescale.
Then, as pointed out in the post, excess wind generation is 'curtailed' to reduce supply.
My question. Is it technically possible just to send excess wind generated electric supply to discharge to ground, in order to keep the grid and or distribution networks balanced? If it is why is it not done?
Technically it is possible but would have to be via a big resistor to keep within the power rating of the turbine. However, what we really need is for windmills to be called onto the grid in merit order when they have output on offer which i know isn't pure dispatchable but nevertheless it allows the ESO to call on the generation the system needs. Now the windmills just say they will be generating X and in the full knowledge, especially in Scotland, that the transmission system won't be able to take the power so will get constrained off and leave the ESO to find the power from CCGTs. We already have too many windmills North of the B3 boundary and everyone added now before Eastern DC Links are built just exacerbates the problem and pushes up the BM bill further. So i would certainly say there is case to offer Scotland a TOUT tariff as thats where the excess is and thats where the wind is. In E&W there is nothing wrong with bringing back an old style economy 7 tariff say 2300-0500 although not sure many people have storage heaters anymore but if the price was more competitive than gas i would use the immersion heater on the hot water tank.
Scotland already has a TOUT tariff - Octopus Agile
The big resistor solution is used on King Island.
https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/king-island
These days the system seems to be in difficulty, and is running predominantly on diesel. But when it was very windy and gusty, the resistor was used to help balance the power along with rapid variations in diesel output and the attached flywheel system and small battery (the original Vanadium Flow battery caught fire). Roger Andrews analysed the system based on some excellent data scraping work by others here:
https://euanmearns.com/a-first-look-at-the-king-island-tasmania-renewable-energy-integration-project/
A real lesson in the limitations of renewables.
I like the energy dashboard for King Island simply shows thats when its dark and not windy all the heavy lifting is being done by diesel! I could just about tolerate renewables being part of the energy mix and even pay a bit more as long as numpty Millibrain acknowledges that we need to keep CCGTs and that if there is any gas left under the UK we should exploit it.
CCGTs have always been part of the future, fuelled either by hydrogen or gas with carbon capture. No one credible has ever suggested not having CCGTs
The Royal Society did.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/large-scale-electricity-storage/
That was an academic exercise to prove the point, but not based on system operability
Not in Milibrains world otherwise he wouldn't be daft not to continue to exploit our own resources
Pretty sure he’s just approved building new ones
Lol
And he's receiving large amounts of money from green activists of course, as is the entire labour party.
I am going to give it a go for a few articles with a proper microphone and see where that takes us.
Tip: record in a room with soft furnishings, carpet and drawn curtains to reduce echoes/shrill sound. Make sure you are undisturbed, including by exterior noise! If you are doing video of yourself as well look for some hints on studio/portrait lighting and choice of background. Lights will need to be above head level, probably with a slightly stronger light on one side than the other to create natural shadows. Reflectors can help (a white pillowcase is a simple one).