camelot-forum.co.uk

With apologies to those who may be aware already but came across this announcement on NESO site this morning and hadn't previously appreciated the implications of it. But Grid Forming Batteries would seem to be another step towards replacing spinning reserves traditionally the forte of generators and FF plants.

https://www.neso.energy/news/great-brit ... s-scotland

I’ve never understood why we still need a “spinning reserve” that is an actual, physical, spinning mass. Surely all the solar/battery inverters in people’s houses as well as at grid-scale batteries can do the job?

Is this another wheeze by the FF companies to keep the hydrocarbons flowing?

With electronic devices being capable of responding in m'seconds I had much the same impression and rather naively assumed batteries and inverters were already capable of doing just that but presumably not the case unless specific storage facilities are identified purely for this purpose outside of other grid balanceing services so maybe requires a specific long term contract as the case above.

I have to confess to having a problem keeping up with all the differing names of response services such as balancing mechanism, frquency response, fast response, quick response etc the list seems almost endless but presumable each with their own individual requirements.
Anyway, it's good to see progress being made towards a net zero future and eventual removal of FF's from energy generation.

Stinsy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 7:07 am I’ve never understood why we still need a “spinning reserve” that is an actual, physical, spinning mass. Surely all the solar/battery inverters in people’s houses as well as at grid-scale batteries can do the job?

Is this another wheeze by the FF companies to keep the hydrocarbons flowing?

Spinning mass rides through faults better than inverters that just trip. I'm sure software changes for key infrastructure could allow for this, but it'd get interesting around grid codes.

smegal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 9:11 am

Stinsy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 7:07 am I’ve never understood why we still need a “spinning reserve” that is an actual, physical, spinning mass. Surely all the solar/battery inverters in people’s houses as well as at grid-scale batteries can do the job?

Is this another wheeze by the FF companies to keep the hydrocarbons flowing?

Spinning mass rides through faults better than inverters that just trip. I'm sure software changes for key infrastructure could allow for this, but it'd get interesting around grid codes.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying. But I'm imagining a million little inverters all pushing the frequency into its preferred range. Surely that'd be better than a single point of failure and it must be better than paying FF companies to keep polluting.

However this really is at the edge of my understanding.

The grid engineers must think something physical has a role to play, we saw something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_condenser installed in NE England not so long ago...
p.s. apparently at https://new.abb.com/news/detail/101299/ ... power-grid plus somewhere called Yaxley

There is definitely something to be said for the simplicity of a flywheel. It does not need FF to power it as it takes its power from the grid until it is up to speed and then it absorbs surplus power on the grid when the frequency goes up and releases it when the frequency goes down.

National Grid certainly used to have and probably still do.

Sure, batteries and cabinets of electronics can do the same but they can also go up in smoke.

Stinsy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 9:30 am

smegal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 9:11 am

Stinsy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 7:07 am I’ve never understood why we still need a “spinning reserve” that is an actual, physical, spinning mass. Surely all the solar/battery inverters in people’s houses as well as at grid-scale batteries can do the job?

Is this another wheeze by the FF companies to keep the hydrocarbons flowing?

Spinning mass rides through faults better than inverters that just trip. I'm sure software changes for key infrastructure could allow for this, but it'd get interesting around grid codes.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying. But I'm imagining a million little inverters all pushing the frequency into its preferred range. Surely that'd be better than a single point of failure and it must be better than paying FF companies to keep polluting.

However this really is at the edge of my understanding.

If there's a large fault that goes out of bounds, inverters trip. Turbines keep spinning for a little while.

This presentation does a good job of explaining.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/sites/defa ... tation.pdf

A million little inverters can also make a blackout worse if they are tripped by under frequency as happened in 2019, thus causing an instant increased demand at a bad time.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/ ... report.pdf
3.32 Additionally, in excess of 200MW of distributed generation tripped off when system frequency reached 49Hz.

Surely you can make a physically spinning flywheel powered by electric motors, so keep the physical nature, but replace gas turbine or whatever ff source?