EDF confirms funding for Sizewell C

[Oldgreybeard]

I would not bet on that ! "next couple of decades" Just think where we have got to in the last ten yrs alone EVs,PV, batts. Everyday some new twist of energy supply keeps showing. I would not even bet on 5yrs.

You seem to be only thinking of Li batts but there are many other chemistries waiting in the background which negate your concerns. Pumped hydro has not caught the limelight yet mainly because there is not enough excess RE. Just imagine when we have frequent RE excesses and leccy is close to £xero.then all storage will be falling over themselves to get some of the action. SSE already has a big hydro storage in mind with planning permission and i believe initial spade work has already started to supply building access.

Dont get this Gov needs to fund this or that, gov funding is not needed they just use it to steer the market. Wind,Solar and storage dont require subsidy.

The key thing is that before any new technology gets rolled out at large scale (and with generation we need large scale power plants) it does just take many years to go from the technology demonstration stage to a viable product. EVs are a great example, it's taken decades to go from the first production EV to the point where around 14% of all UK new car sales are EVs (first modern production EVs were in the 1990s, GM EV1, Toyota Rav4 EV, Honda EV Plus, Ford Ranger EV, etc).

Same for house batteries, the LiFePO4 chemistry that has made home batteries safe and have the required high cycle life has been around for well over 20 years - I built a LiFePO4 battery pack in 2004, using production cells (Headways) from China. These things just don't happen overnight, it takes time to develop and test any new technology and get it to the point where it is proven to be safe and reliable enough for use at scale.

When it comes to other chemistries, then probably the most promising is the various flow battery chemistries, mostly using redox reactions. Again, the idea has been around for decades, I think I first heard about zinc bromine redox flow cells back in the 1990s, yet we're still not very close to them being mature enough to use at large scale.

[Adokforme]

Of the few things I took from school days over half a century ago was from our geography teacher who held the view that the "forests of the Amazon basin were the lungs of the planet and also that we upset the balance of nature at our peril". I've no idea whether this was based upon fact or simply a myth/old wives tale passed on through the generations.
With our continuing desire of ever greater economic growth and comforts we have continued to compromise both of the above elements so that the situation we now find ourselves in regarding climate change suggests there may have been some factual substance aligned to his words.
A couple of other lines I recall that also appear to have stood the test of time is that "necessity is the mother of invention" and that "mankind is inherently resistant to change"!
I do wonder if both of these phrases will have a role to play in the ongoing debate of how we tackle the challenges ahead!
Just thinking back to the arrival of covid and how normally vaccines take years to develop and approve it was striking how quickly mankind developed effective vaccines of more than one variety in a relative short space of time when the need arose.
As we understand today and how Nowty ably demonstrates through his graph, we have as yet to apply appropriately the technologies available to cover our needs here 24/7, but the technologies do exist. We certainly need to find the best ways to apply them along with other developments in storage. Given a decade or so and the resource available who would bet against solutions being found!
The X-Link project bringing energy from Morocco ashore here, equal to that generated by Sizewell C, is planned to deliver in 2027 so one known application already in progress.
Interesting times ahead and how we navigate our way through the perils that climate change brings means we will have to change, like it or not.
So probably better to make those changes now rather than keep kicking the can down the road.

[Oldgreybeard]

I find myself in two minds about projects like the X-Link. The practical part of me thinks it is a great idea, and part of me wants to be positive about it because cooperation is far better than conflict (as Churchill espoused in his call for a "United States of Europe" as an end to European wars). Another part of me feels that being dependent on a far-off land for energy security isn't wise, though, based on what we are seeing at the moment with so many countries being effectively held hostage by one rogue state.

Overall, I find myself swinging further towards the ideals typified by The Good Life, over 45 years ago, in that I think that, at least for now, there is a great deal of merit in trying to become as independent of centrally provided services as possible. We're pretty close now, our only grid connections are electricity and a phone line (we're already "off-grid" for water and sewage, and don't have gas or burn oil, wood or coal). If we could find a way of generating clean electricity in winter then I'd get rid of the grid connection for sure. Getting rid of the phone is much harder, as we're in a "not spot", that's very unlikely to ever get sorted.

Hard not to be influenced by current events, and as someone that's always felt that cooperation with other countries is a very positive thing, I now find myself torn between that view and the merits of being truly independent.

[Mart]

Mart,
You might like to again look at http://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-pa ... and-solar/
It calculated 35,000kwh storage required to get to zero gas. At 500GWh 14% of demand will be required as gas (in some form or other)

Lithium batts will not be used for straight storage. They are at the moment because they suit short time grid support and will replace synchronous generation which needs to be run at the moment "just in case". Flow batts siut this job quite well as the ingredients can be stored for ages.

Anyway whats with this zero gas thing anyway. If in the good times of RE we make a long lasting product that can be used at will when the "wind dont blow and sun dont shine" We already have enough gas plants.

This problem is far too complex. I have no doubt that supply and demand will win out as long as the gov steers the arguments to net zero.

Sorry Ken, but looking at it again it does say 13% (12.8%) not 14% gas, and believe it or not I did say 13% from memory. If that's what you meant?

Anyway, so as I said, one possibility would be to take the spill (34%), and produce H2 from it, then burn that as the gas in the CCGT's, or combine with waste CO2 to produce methane, but probably easier to modify the gas boilers (any idea?)

[Hopefully, a lot of the spill will be exported to countries that need it, and then effectively imported when positions are reversed. Norway, and the other nations with huge amounts of hydro storage are fascinating. They can build out wind and solar now, and use existing hydro as storage, despite most of it not being PHS. They simply dial down hydro generation when RE rises. They are in the wonderous position of having the large scale / long term storage already, sorta accidental back to front. Lucky sods.]

So that's one example of the longer term storage that I mentioned, H2 and CAES. Both have UK potentials of greater than 1,000TWh's of storage using saline aquifers and old gas wells (as mentioned earlier in the thread), but obviously we'd only need 10TWh or so, depending on how low RE generation and imports get. At zero generation and import, which isn't realistic, for a week, that would be around 15-20TWh's in the future ....... but I'm just spitballing.

Obviously important not to look at the total gas consumption as a total storage figure, since it can be cycled as RE generation waxes and wanes.

Flow batts make for great reading too, with larger scale deployments starting to happen. There is an initial cost penalty per kWh of storage, and lower efficiency, but with energy scaleable separate to power, the cost falls as you go bigger, and they seem to have almost no limit to cycles. I'm not sure if you're betting on them, and don't want to put words into your mouth, but I think they look like a winner, especially as material costs are temporarily pushing Lithium related storage costs up.

So very (very, very) long way of saying yep, totally agree with you. If the gas is sourced from RE, and stored and used when needed, then I too have no idea why it needs to be zero, and we can't use existing CCGT's. (* oh sh.t, here I go again, see end of post).

As I mentioned, I'm almost certain that when this first came out, and totally backfired, as proof that we had to have nuclear, the gas / biofuels column only said gas. And to be fair, my suggestion of H2 or methane, isn't a bio fuel, but synthetic (I believe) as it's being manufactured ..... but again I digress.

Lastly, and I'm sorry if I'm teaching grandma to suck egss, but that gas/biofuels may come with inbuilt storage, so to speak, just like much of today's bio-energy which can partly demand follow. I'm wary to stress this part too much since thye single largest element is bio-mass, and that carries many, many negatives too ...

..... however, I believe I have mentioned before that some countries, Ukraine being one of the biggest, has vast sustainable bio-mass potential, simply vast. My idea was that instead of transporting it around the World, like the US and Canadian bio-mass we import, they might build with European funding support, large scale bio-mass generation, and HVDC, to act as demand following support to top up European leccy when needed. Add in CCS for BECCS, and the financial payments (from all of us) that that should get, and they might be able to provide negative CO2 energy to the grid.

Just a thought, be gentle with me and my ponderings.


*Can't apologise enough for throwing so, so much at this thread, but the predictions for energy source as we head into the next few decades, is actually for less and less CCGT's, and more and more OCGT's. I can only assume that the lower CAPEX of OCGT wins out v's the higher efficiency of CCGT as they get used ever less, and for shorter, swifter demand following. But I'm completely guessing now.

[Oldgreybeard]

The OCGT versus CCGT thing is largely down to capex plus time. Building an OCGT plant is pretty easy, we've been doing it for decades and using the same technology to power warships for at least 50 years, so it's pretty much off-the-shelf stuff. CCGT is more complex and costly, largely because of the exhaust gas heat recovery side.

If you want to build a plant quickly and get a rapid return on the investment, then OCGT is the way to go. If you want to build the most energy efficient plant, aren't so fussed about the capital cost or the additional construction time then CCGT is the way to go.

I believe the main problem is the short term thinking that the free market tends to encourage. Investors want a rapid return, usually, so that tends to shift the emphasis towards OCGT.

When it comes to H2, then the technical challenges are enormous for producing it at scale. Apart from the fact that the production efficiency is absolutely terrible, there are just too many other problems with trying to turn H2 into a viable fuel. Even storing it is extremely challenging, both because of the risks involved but also because trying to stop it leaking is a great deal harder just because it is such a very tiny molecule.

[Mart]

Hiya OGB, just to say, part of the reason LFP has been slow to take off was down to Chinese patents which started to expire in 2021 and this year. Certainly striking that Tesla seems to have embraced it warmly, both for shorter range versions of their cars, where the lower energy density doesn't matter as the space is big enough for the longer range packs, and also in their Megapacks, which this year suddenly increased about 50% in energy, but about 65% in size and weight, almost certainly suggesting a move to LFP.


Only my thoughts on the Morocco Link, but something that occurred to me when it was announced and people started to voice fears potentially being held at ransom, so to speak, like Putler is doing with gas - the nature of wind and solar is that it's value is in use it or lose it. So if 'they' stop supplying it, through the dedicated HVDC cables, then they also lose all of the revenue too, they don't get to store it like FF's. Yes there is storage included in the scheme to maintain the supply, but it's less than one day.

Please don't think I'm being naive, nor saying that 'they' can't play silly uggers with us, but they lose too, so hopefully it's like M.A.D. and won't come into play.



Just to say, I can see your reply on gas generation and H2. Many thanks. My thoughts about H2 are similar to yours, and since it seems to need the same resources for storage as CAES, then CAES may be a better bet. As mentioned a few days back, it seems the Chinese are claiming efficiencies as high as 70% for CAES with a new procedure they have. That seems too high to me, but good luck for them, but 50% would be fine, especially as the leccy will be extremely cheap at the point CAES is mopping it up, so the arbitrage potential will help enormously.

[Mart]

Inflation is a risk if the money created isn't absorbed into the economy by being used for some useful work, services or better still manufacturing, which is limited by capacity in all kinds of areas. We are though a Country of low productivity by many standards so at the moment there is quite a lot of room.

Over the years I have become very much less keen on Nuclear energy due in no small part to your posts among others, but I think it fair to say I feel it is way to early in our renewables adventure to replace it.

To be honest, personally ,I don't care where our energy comes from as long as it doesn't wreck the environment or other peoples lives.

Desp

Hi Desp, totally understand. It also occurs to me that I may be coming across as saying nuclear doesn't help, and can't help. If so, that's because I can't type, what's going round in my head, as it's mostly a blur of confused thought, so I vomit up a somewhat confusing written version of the picture that is much clearer in my thoughts.

Perhaps I seem pedantic, perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it's the net effect I'm focusing on. So let's say we spend some money on nuclear, and get an extra +1% low carbon generation. That, to most reasonable people would seem like a gain. But to me, if the money would bring in +2% clean generation from RE (+ storage), then the nuclear spending is actually a net loss of -1%.

Sorry if that seems churlish or petty, but that's the way my brain works. 1% extra is great, 2% extra is better, 1% instead of 2% is a loss /lost opportunity.

But in case it needs saying, I'd still take the 1% over nothing.



Edit - In case anyone is interested in keeping an eye on storage news, there's a really good site for energy storage news, called .... wait for it .... energy storage news:

Energy Storage (News)

[Swwils]

X link is a ridiculous pipe dream and if you have invested your money is gone.

If you want it very simple - the most impact comes from stable nuclear generation. It's also the least carbon intensive to build.

These magical 15MW turbines exist, took France 8 years to get permission for, then they were able to build... One.

Just the required interlinks alone for a RE rollout would be an absolutely super human effort to do.

There is not unlimited resources or time.

To demonstrate how damaging politics and viewpoints can be; Germany.

They had an absolutely amazing nuclear fleet with an unrivalled 92% capacity factor. Taken off the grid after just 18 years on it. They now depend on imported gas generation and coal power and have become a net importer for the first time ever. They face real restrictions and deindustrialization because of this choice.

[spread-tee]

But Mart, it is easily possible to have both, that has to be better than just one of them irrespective of their relative size.

Ken we need GOVT spending here because basically private companies have made a right mess of our infrastructure and will pretty much only accept a quick return on their money. Also as we have seen since privatisation it has mostly fallen into foreign ownership which is not necessarily bad but if/when the sh1t hits the fan they will look after their own interest first, why wouldn't they?

Desp

[Oldgreybeard]

Not sure that patents have ever applied to any Chinese technology, TBH. The LiFePO4 cells I first looked at using in 2004 were from the USA, produced and tested by a US startup that was connected with a big US university. At that time they claimed that Headway (the Chinese company I bought cells from) had just stolen the US IP for making LiFePO4 cells, and I'm inclined to think they were right, even though the person running the US company that I tried to deal with turned out to be a con artist.

China hasn't ever really paid any attention to IP, AFAIK. I have a friend that used to make expensive custom bicycles and he made a bad decision some years ago, by offshoring some production of parts to China. Bit him in the backside, as the company he used started making his designs in volume and selling them to anyone. They completely ignored his claims that some of the concepts were protected by patents he held, and the Chinese authorities basically told him to go forth and procreate.

I've pretty sure that the only reason that the MIC Tesla Model 3s used LiFePO4 was cost and availability. At the time the Chinese factory opened, there was a massive problem with cell production, partly because of the issues between Tesla and Panasonic, partly due to the global issues with battery production. Tesla just did the sensible thing and switched to a more readily available, cheaper and far less energy dense, battery technology for their lower range models, as that made a great deal of economic sense - it allowed them to get Model 3 SR production running from China more quickly.

I've not seen any indication that Tesla are likely to switch to using LiFePO4 for their longer range, higher performance, models, and TBH I'd be very surprised if they did. My experience with using LiFePO4 cells in modest EVs wasn't great, they are a lot bigger and heavier and the long cycle life just isn't needed, as very few EVs will ever exceed around 500 cycles in their normal lifetime.