camelot-forum.co.uk

At the moment we are curtailing wind equal to the output of HPC when built.
Something that has been built in c10yrs at a cost less than the cost of HPC £40B is actually THROWING AWAY as much as HPC will produce when finished
The curtailment amount also approx. equals the amount of gas being used as i write.

https://wind-curtailment-app-ahq7fucdyq-lz.a.run.app/
https://archy.deberker.com/the-uk-is-wa ... ind-power/

When HPC is built it is going to curtail wind output further

Brill Ken.

Incredible how quickly the economics of RE, and now storage, have advanced.

I wasn't sure about the costs of HPC back in 2012, but thought it a good hedge. Only 3yrs later when it was reviewed, I was already pretty confident it wasn't a good investment .... but I won't lie, still OK as a hedge. By the late 2010's, there simply seemed no point to it, nor SZC.

I find disruptions and the clean energy revolutions fascinating, but I'm always amazed at how much more quickly the costs have become truly disruptive, than I ever thought possible.

Should we look at HPC as displacing gas rather than wind ? I agree it’s showing itself to be costly to build but I understood this reactor was able to load follow ? So rather than being a competitor to wind and solar it should compliment them and reduce gas based generation shouldn’t it?

Moxi

I would rather we saw nuclear as displacing gas, coal and that subsidy grabbing Biomass.

The reasons for wind curtailment are many and complex, but partly shows how flexible wind is for maintaining grid frequency- very easy to turn down a turbine or 6. We all know that grid reinforcement is needed to facilitate larger power flows across the network and this will help. This is being done but takes time.

The EPR design can load follow to some extent apparently- but with the CfD incentive there is no reason for the operator to do so they need to generate and sell every electron at all times.

dan_b wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:21 am I would rather we saw nuclear as displacing gas, coal and that subsidy grabbing Biomass.

The reasons for wind curtailment are many and complex, but partly shows how flexible wind is for maintaining grid frequency- very easy to turn down a turbine or 6. We all know that grid reinforcement is needed to facilitate larger power flows across the network and this will help. This is being done but takes time.

The EPR design can load follow to some extent apparently- but with the CfD incentive there is no reason for the operator to do so they need to generate and sell every electron at all times.

Agree.
CfD supported producers can carry on producing even when the price is negative but non CfD gas always need a significant positive price and hence are very vunrable. Increasingly their roll will be spinning reserve in key locations.

My big hope, would actually be the tidal lagoons. I'm hopefull that they are viable and cost competitive against nuclear ...... but can't help having a nagging doubt. Wonder if we'll ever find out.

Or, if the Morocco scheme is truly viable at ~£60/MWh CfD (2012 baseline), then that probably blows most plans out of the water.

Amazing how fast things are now changing/developing.

Tidal lagoons alter the local habitat so there is always going to be a "second step" consideration though. I understand the Severn lagoon, although it could cover a stupendous amount of human power use, is opposed by, for example, the RSPB because of the effect it would have on the habitat for birds: https://www.edie.net/barrage-bad-for-birds/

Personally I doubt that putting so many eggs in one basket is a wise move from an energy security position as well. All it takes is on act of sabotage...

Can’t build tidal but it’s ok for EDF to kill 45 tonnes of fish a day because they think protecting the sea water cooling inlets is “too hard” and then they are going to turn a perfectly good grass land habitat in to a salt Mariah and displace hares and newts etc ?

It doesn’t sound like a level playing field.

Also how does a tidal barrage equal no bird habitats?

All you are doing is delaying high water by an hour or two to allow a driving head to build up either side of the bi directional turbines. There’s no need to alter the tidal zone just the time of day it occurred, so the same tidal sequences but offset by a few hours shouldn’t cause and problem for fauna or flora as long as they set their watches - they don’t seem to struggle with the change to BST so it should be ok.

Moxi

Moxi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 11:36 am Can’t build tidal but it’s ok for EDF to kill 45 tonnes of fish a day because they think protecting the sea water cooling inlets is “too hard” and then they are going to turn a perfectly good grass land habitat in to a salt Mariah and displace hares and newts etc ?

It doesn’t sound like a level playing field.

Also how does a tidal barrage equal no bird habitats?

All you are doing is delaying high water by an hour or two to allow a driving head to build up either side of the bi directional turbines. There’s no need to alter the tidal zone just the time of day it occurred, so the same tidal sequences but offset by a few hours shouldn’t cause and problem for fauna or flora as long as they set their watches - they don’t seem to struggle with the change to BST so it should be ok.

Moxi

I am not and I will not defend EDFs decision regarding protecting the water intakes. Put me in the camp which says any decision is founded on presented facts, and if those facts change, then the entire decision must be called into question. I think any decision has to be stacked up against solar and batteries on every house, wind on every hill and grid scale storage at some point, and I'm pretty sure most options will fail at that comparison.

I understand that there has been research on underwater sounds which may actually mean that the proposed system is a non starter: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4626970/ . I wonder if further research in this area calls into question the viability of the novel solution they first proposed.

Regarding the tidal barrage affecting bird habitats, I pointed out that RSPB, as an example, opposed it so there re more considerations than hte simple economic views, but here is one article with further references https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... references

Krill wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 11:15 am Tidal lagoons alter the local habitat so there is always going to be a "second step" consideration though. I understand the Severn lagoon, although it could cover a stupendous amount of human power use, is opposed by, for example, the RSPB because of the effect it would have on the habitat for birds: https://www.edie.net/barrage-bad-for-birds/

Personally I doubt that putting so many eggs in one basket is a wise move from an energy security position as well. All it takes is on act of sabotage...

Hi, I don't think there is still any serious consideration for the Severn tidal barrage, I was talking about the tidal lagoons (I think there are between 6 and 20 proposed locations). Whilst there will be some local impact on the environment, there are also gains from the water containment area, storm flood defences, even tourism and 'waterside' property development.

The Cardiff and Swansea Bay barrages, built last century*, were purely for aesthetics and area development, such as the Cardiff Docks area, now being a business centre and tourism at the bay.

*Teeny claim to fame, but I organised a trip for colleagues in the Environment Division of the Welsh Office to visit the site during construction. Got to walk in the giant hole, inside the cofferdam, where the sea locks were to be cast.