camelot-forum.co.uk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68538951

Seemed inevitable to me as storage options for quantities required without gas are still too immature for the quantities needed.

Not sure about that.
Doesn’t seem to me they really needed to use the DFS this winter so not even close to having black outs.
One can only assume home battery storage, which helps the DFS, are only going to increase capacity.
Seems a cop out to me.

Not sure about that.

Neither am I, so I will (currently) accept that some gas stations need replacing for energy security. My most local gas fired power station is not a combined cycle unit, so gets relatively little use. I don’t know how much and how many more similar stations are dotted around.

Better to have them and not use them than the country suffering black-outs. I insure my possessions against loss and feel this may be a similar type of situation?

It will be difficult to encourage commercial ventures, where the pay-back and profits may not be predictable. So is a difficult situation that needs at least considering … even if discarded later if/when the future power supplies are more predictable.

It's this bit I find most interesting:

"The government says the new plants will guarantee energy security, ensure low electricity prices in the future and rid Britain of the need to rely on foreign dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"A nation that is dependent on the whims of dictators for its energy supply can never be truly safe," Mr Putin wrote in the Daily Telegraph."

I read that bit with some surprise too - is it a copy error?!

My view on this is that the easiest way to delay transition to net zero is to build more fossil burning infrastructure. Much like how Sunak's government has given new oil and gas licences, and delayed the ICE car "ban" by 5 years. It's almost as if they have another set of objectives.

Fintray wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:36 am It's this bit I find most interesting:

"The government says the new plants will guarantee energy security, ensure low electricity prices in the future and rid Britain of the need to rely on foreign dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"A nation that is dependent on the whims of dictators for its energy supply can never be truly safe," Mr Putin wrote in the Daily Telegraph."

dan_b wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:48 am I read that bit with some surprise too - is it a copy error?!

Maybe needs to go through the BBC fact checking service either that or Rishi and Co. have brought in Vlad as an adviser...

Ach, they've changed it:
"A nation that is dependent on the whims of dictators for its energy supply can never be truly safe," Mr Sunak wrote in the Daily Telegraph. Justin a few minutes ago would be getting

The government says the new plants will guarantee energy security, ensure low electricity prices in the future and rid Britain of the need to rely on foreign dictators

sticks in my craw. They know full well that a) UK exported 80%(?) of the oil produced throughout the recent energy crisis and b) explained openly that our electricity prices were set by world gas prices (related to world oil prices) so UK production of gas had no effect whatsoever on domestic electricity prices. So that explanation is completely dishonest,

If they really want to do something about the problems they mention they can do something about the structure of the industry and the financial side of it too. We're still waiting for (fully permitted) pumped storage to become financially viable - but that depends on the grid and government changing the way that utility gets charged for flows of power in bith directions.

I think it is about protecting their friends and their friends profits in the fossil fuel industries (and their donations from them.)

Going back a year (or so) I posted a report about how the UK's needs and demands might change, and mentioned the changing gas capacity:

DNV’s - Energy Transition Outlook UK 2022

It actually showed gas capacity rising, but broken down by CCGT falling, and OCGT rising, so as to meet smaller periods of shortfall.

Link looks broken, but the report is available for download here.

Oops! Forgot my entire point about mentioning this.

So, step one, let's assume they are correct, and economically, OCGT beats CCGT. That may seem odd, as OCGT is less efficient, but it's also smaller, cheaper to build out, and quicker. So if new CCGT won't be viable at lower and lower capacity factors, then OCGT may be better ...... I don't know?

But that takes us to step two, if the gap filler is OCGT, then the generation will be at a higher cost (per MWh), which would encourage RE and storage as a competitor. That balance might not have a long(er) term impact on RE, whereas huge CAPEX on CCGT plants might act against RE/storage*, due to sunk cost bias.

*As per the fears several have raised.

I remember reading or hearing somewhere about the grid needs heavy spinning gas turbines to take up the fluctuations with wind and solar. Appearently battery storage etc can't take up the slack that rapidly - I don't think it was from anyone with a vested interest ...