EDF confirms funding for Sizewell C

[Oldgreybeard]

The big problem seems to be the tiny scale of UK battery storage. We have a "big" battery installation not far from us (this one: https://www.dorsetbiznews.co.uk/pivotal ... in-dorset/) which is probably going to be doubled in capacity soon (there's a planning application in for this now). This "big" storage plant has a capacity of only 40MWh, increasing to 80MWh when the new battery is added to the existing one in a year or two.

That is so trivial an amount of energy storage as to almost be a joke. The total capacity needed to run the UK grid for just one hour without generation would need about 625 to 650 of those "big" battery plants. There are smaller battery systems being installed at some solar and wind farm connection points, plus the tiny little units that are being used to handle demand surges at some car charging installations, but it's a very tiny drop in the ocean when compared to the sort of storage we need. We need storage on the scale of half a dozen Dinorwigs, and I just don't have any confidence in battery storage coming close to that in my remaining lifetime.

[Countrypaul]

The issue of reliable electrical supply suggests that we should have several different sources of supply and not put an over reliance on any one particular technology. We need to have enough surplus generation possible that if any one technology is unable to generate then the others can still meet our needs. This is obviously much more easily stated than achieved. We have seen problems when this is not the case with various causes in various countries over the years. In Europe we have seen this with coal (the miners strike in the UK), with Nuclear in France (due to river water shortage from drought), with Hydo in Europe due to drought, and most obviously recently with gas due to conflict.

We know that wind can have long periods of low production, and in this country we know that PV can produce very little in winter.

The use of interconnectors to other countries help, but we need to be ensure that the production in the other countries is not in the same boat as our production - no use relying on gas in Europe if both them and us have the same supply. Getting electricity from, say, Iceland which is produced by geothermal source would therefore have benefits as virtually no overlap with our own production. Where else in europe could utilise geothermal - Italy ?

If we are to eliminate coal and gas from electrical generation then we should have several technologies to turn to, unfortunately at present I don't think we have enough yet. We have Wind, Nuclear, and Solar (but hardly eny when we most need it in winter), along with small quantities of hydo, tidal, biomass. Tidal and Wave power would be hugely beneficial but are still under development and likely years away from being able to be installed at sufficient quantity.

All the storage technologies currently are only really suitable for short term be they batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen or laes etc.

Reluctantly, I feel droping Nuclear from the mix we have at this time will open us up to being too dependant on too few technologies. I know wind and Solar are much cheaper, just as Russian gas was for Europe, as we all know just bying cheap often means buyg twice.

[Oldgreybeard]

The issue of reliable electrical supply suggests that we should have several different sources of supply and not put an over reliance on any one particular technology. We need to have enough surplus generation possible that if any one technology is unable to generate then the others can still meet our needs. This is obviously much more easily stated than achieved. We have seen problems when this is not the case with various causes in various countries over the years. In Europe we have seen this with coal (the miners strike in the UK), with Nuclear in France (due to river water shortage from drought), with Hydo in Europe due to drought, and most obviously recently with gas due to conflict.

We know that wind can have long periods of low production, and in this country we know that PV can produce very little in winter.

The use of interconnectors to other countries help, but we need to be ensure that the production in the other countries is not in the same boat as our production - no use relying on gas in Europe if both them and us have the same supply. Getting electricity from, say, Iceland which is produced by geothermal source would therefore have benefits as virtually no overlap with our own production. Where else in europe could utilise geothermal - Italy ?

If we are to eliminate coal and gas from electrical generation then we should have several technologies to turn to, unfortunately at present I don't think we have enough yet. We have Wind, Nuclear, and Solar (but hardly eny when we most need it in winter), along with small quantities of hydo, tidal, biomass. Tidal and Wave power would be hugely beneficial but are still under development and likely years away from being able to be installed at sufficient quantity.

All the storage technologies currently are only really suitable for short term be they batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen or laes etc.

Reluctantly, I feel droping Nuclear from the mix we have at this time will open us up to being too dependant on too few technologies. I know wind and Solar are much cheaper, just as Russian gas was for Europe, as we all know just bying cheap often means buyg twice.

I agree 100%, but my concern is that we are leaving all the decisions as to how such a spread of generation should be provided to companies (often not UK based) that have zero interest in the energy security of the UK grid.

I find it hard to see how we can come up with the right balance of generation capabilities by just leaving it to market forces, and occasionally poking the system with a sharp stick (as we've done with new nuclear) when it looks likely that market forces aren't going to drive a safe and secure outcome for the future.

We need to learn lessons from what's happening across Europe right now, because one tin pot dictator has decided to make some relatively small changes to the way energy is supplied. We also need to look at how energy supplies are being weaponised - right now it seems clear that Russia is intent on knocking out as much Ukrainian power generation and distribution as possible, and they are doing it without deploying a lot of assets, because Ukraine has a massively centralised power generation system (a small number of very large power stations). We need not only secure, safe and pollution free generation, but we also need it to be very widely distributed and not dependent on a few very large power stations.

There's a pretty solid argument that encouraging far more micro storage is a sensible thing, as it's cost effective, can be rolled out very rapidly (compared to building generation capacity) and provides a more energy efficient buffer to handle peak demand (no distribution losses when discharging). For the cost of Sizewell C, for example, we could install battery systems into around 10 million homes. The likely impact of that much storage would be to reduce grid peak demand by close to double the generation capability of Sizewell C (10 million homes with batteries could knock about 5GW off UK peak demand for about 6 hours, Sizewell C is rated to deliver 3.2GW).

[Fintray]

The big problem seems to be the tiny scale of UK battery storage. We have a "big" battery installation not far from us (this one: https://www.dorsetbiznews.co.uk/pivotal ... in-dorset/) which is probably going to be doubled in capacity soon (there's a planning application in for this now). This "big" storage plant has a capacity of only 40MWh, increasing to 80MWh when the new battery is added to the existing one in a year or two.

That is so trivial an amount of energy storage as to almost be a joke. The total capacity needed to run the UK grid for just one hour without generation would need about 625 to 650 of those "big" battery plants. There are smaller battery systems being installed at some solar and wind farm connection points, plus the tiny little units that are being used to handle demand surges at some car charging installations, but it's a very tiny drop in the ocean when compared to the sort of storage we need. We need storage on the scale of half a dozen Dinorwigs, and I just don't have any confidence in battery storage coming close to that in my remaining lifetime.

Reading this got me thinking about a site I saw locally when out driving that I thought looked like containers for battery systems. I just checked on the area planning department website and found it is a battery storage system of 50MW. Looking through the other applications I counted at least 700MW of battery storage proposals, so there is a fair amount in planning.

[Mart]

Reluctantly, I feel droping Nuclear from the mix we have at this time will open us up to being too dependant on too few technologies. I know wind and Solar are much cheaper, just as Russian gas was for Europe, as we all know just bying cheap often means buyg twice.

Hiya. I don't believe the buy twice anology works in this instance. Typically it refers to buying low quality cheap products that fail.

Here we are talking about the same product - leccy generation and reliability. If RE + storage beats nuclear (+ a smaller amount of storage), then we get the same product for less. Not lower quality.

Taking the analogy to the extreme, for testing purposes, we could subsidise hamsters on treadmills at a vastly higher cost, but would it be a higher quality project than the then cheaper nuclear option?



Hiya OGB, just to say that 40MWh or 80MWh is not now a big battery in terms of reference. Fopr instance, 5yrs ago the Hornsdale 'Big' battery in South Australia made the news for being the largest in Australia, and one of the largest in the World at 100MW/129MWh, and is now 150MW/194MWh. but now New South Wales is to build an 850MW/1,680MWh battery. In the UK there two batts in Scotland being built at 400MW/800MWh each.

For UK intraday storage it's estimated that we will need about 500GWh of storage. Yes that's a huge amount, but broken down across RE generation sites, grid suport, DNO support and demand side, it's not so intimidating. just looking at a whole BEV car fleet in the UK, 1/3rd of BEV's on V2G could provide the 500GWh. Then we have commercial V2G with vans and buses providing support. I only mention V2G for the purposes of scale, and to show that it removes CAPEX, being a by-product of a transport revolution. But of course a fee would need to be paid, so OPEX costs exist.

For longer term storage, we have lots of potential with flow batts, LAES, CO2 storage, gravity solutions etc. And for long term storage we already have solutions, but we need to find out if they are economical. Such as H2 and CAES with the potential in the UK of 10's, 100's even 1,000TWh+ of storage if we use saline aquifers and old gas wells. For scale, assuming demand rises from about 1TWh/day today, to about 2.5TWh/day in 2050, then we would need to build out storage of about 15TWh over that period to account for say a bad 10day period, given that wind and solar even if low, would still provide something, as would hydro, bio-energy, interconnectors etc..

Also might be worth looking at the latest studies from Standford Univerisity (Mark Jacobson) (links below) and the similar position taken by Tony Seba and Rethink X, who suggest that large amounts of long/seasonal term storage won't be needed due to the rapidly falling costs of RE. I think it's fair to say that all studies and reports on RE + storage, have always suggested that the cheapest first step is overcapacity and spill/waste/curtailment. Basically, before you buy a battery, you need enough excess, on a regular enough timeline, to make it economically viable, v's overcapacity. This 'game' continues throughout with a level of overcapacity, as supply, storage and curtailment interact to find their levels.

News Article - Renewable Energy: Zero Blackouts, Millions Of New Jobs — Mark Z. Jacobson

Stanford news report - Stanford researchers point the way to avoiding blackouts with clean, renewable energy


Just to be clear, I'm not saying long term storage isn't needed. In fact I can't really get my head around the economics and positions stated by Stanford and Tony Seba, but they've been providing extremely good forecasts and reports for about a decade, so I'm assuming they know better than me. But again to be clear, it doesn't sound quite right to me, but I can't appreciate all of the moving parts. So not a hill Iworth dying over, but a very interesting argument that changes things a lot.



Another interesting aspect is to look at storage costs from a simplified level. A few years ago I pondered the cost of storage by taking a battery (and associated parts such as the inverter package), then dividing its cost across the warranted cycles at a DoD of 80%. It came out at about 10p/kWh. Only using the warranted figure is probably too harsh, but I just wanted a base number. So, assuming domestic battery costs, again as a worst case basis, then storage would add about 5p/kWh (£50/MWh) to RE generation costs based now on a worst case scenario of 50% of generation needed to be stored, though the figure will most likely be far less. So for instance the Off-shore wind cost of £48/MWh now becomes £98/MWh, significantly cheaper than nuclear.

But commercial scale storage is much cheaper, and flow batts (and other technology under testing) look to be a lot cheaper when their greater cycle life is taken into account.



Also of interest but a slight tangent, is looking at wind or solar prices in the US with 4hr storage. This seems to add about $0.005/kWh ($5/MWh) to the contracted price*, but I suspect this reflects highly predictable solar/wind generation on those sites, so is a reference point I keep an eye out for, but don't feel it's particularly relevent to the UK, for now.

*These deals tend to be a type of PPA (power purchase agreement) where the generator supplies directly to a customer.

[Oldgreybeard]

Even Hornsdale is tiny when compared with the 35 year old Dinorwig storage facility, though, that has a capacity of about 9GWh IIRC. Some rough sums suggest we need at least 5 times the storage capacity that Dinorwig has, so we need roughly 56 of those 800MWh Scottish battery installations.

[Mart]

There's a pretty solid argument that encouraging far more micro storage is a sensible thing, as it's cost effective, can be rolled out very rapidly (compared to building generation capacity) and provides a more energy efficient buffer to handle peak demand (no distribution losses when discharging). For the cost of Sizewell C, for example, we could install battery systems into around 10 million homes. The likely impact of that much storage would be to reduce grid peak demand by close to double the generation capability of Sizewell C (10 million homes with batteries could knock about 5GW off UK peak demand for about 6 hours, Sizewell C is rated to deliver 3.2GW).

Sorry to post so much, but just to say that your comment here is so, so important. It shows that the issue is far more complex, with multiple strategies for addressing it. Dealing with distribution and storage, especially at the DNO or customer level, offers opportunites that may be better, as they add to the package. And whilst of course your suggestion is also compatible with nuclear, perhaps mopping up night time excess, it goes to show that a mix of RE, plus a mix of storage, plus a mix of TOU solutions, results in a whole greater than the sum of its parts.



Btw, just to say, apologies to you and anyone else, who thinks I'm a raving anti-nuclear loony, I'm honestly not. It's vastly better than coal, and cheaper when considering all externality costs. It's just that the more I read, the more numbers I see, and the more comparisons I make, using actual figures and prices, it simply doesn't compete economically with RE + (RE + storage)*. So given the additional costs, the additional time, and the fact we are racing to decarbonise leccy by the early 2030's to give us a chance of net zero overall by 2050, I can't see a place for it. But if it was economically competitive, and could make a sizeable difference**, then I would put aside my concerns about storage and safety, and accept it as a necessary lesser evil to combat AGW and growing climate crisis.

*I use that term "RE + (RE + storage)" as most RE generation will be consumed directly, a minority will need storage. So RE + storage can suggest an unfair package cost.

**Worth remembering that the Gov want 16GW of nuclear, and the NIC suggest stopping at 6.4GW. After cf is appllied that's roughly 14.7GW and 5.9GW respectively. If UK average demand rises from 38GW to about 100GW over the next 3 decades, then nuclear will provide about 5.9% (14.7% at most). So it's worth considering that nuclear's contribution would be very small, when we discuss how crucial (or not) it is to our future energy mix.

[Swwils]

EU commission assumes 550GW of chemical storage that must be installed by 2050 to decarbonise the grid when assuming rather generous capacity factors.

All 53 GW of storage in Europe, 95% comes from Pumped Storage in the Alps (days to dispatch like Hydrogen) and thus is not useful from grid balance POV.

Currently operational Lithium-Ion batteries for grid purposes of a total of 4,150 MW installed capacity globally.

A Tesla Gigafactory (once completed) would produce a quantity of batteries each year that could store 30GWh (big!). But Europe consumes 3,300,000 GWh per year.

An annual Gigafactory output could store a minutes of EU power demand.

Your chemical storage solution is an order of magnitude away from the reality.

[Mart]

EU commission assumes 550GW of chemical storage that must be installed by 2050 to decarbonise the grid when assuming rather generous capacity factors.

All 53 GW of storage in Europe, 95% comes from Pumped Storage (PS) in the Alps (days to dispatch like Hydrogen) and thus is not useful from grid balance POV.

Currently operational Lithium-Ion batteries for grid purposes of a total of 4,150 MW installed capacity globally.

A Tesla Gigafactory (once completed) would produce a quantity of batteries each year that could store 30GWh (big!). But Europe consumes 3,300,000 GWh per year.

An annual Gigafactory output could store a minutes of EU power demand.

Your chemical storage solution is an order of magnitude away from the reality.

Hi, just thought it was worth putting your numbers into context, since you've mixed annual energy with stored power. Also you've chosen a single facility for a single manufacturer (30GWh - equal to about 400k cars per year), over a single year, for a comparison against the whole EU annual consumption.

So sticking with Tesla, and the fact that the EU and the US are on a similar scale, Tesla aims to reach an annual level of US production of 1TWh of battery storage pa.

So 1TWh of storage, cycled once per day, would be roughly 365TWh, or 365,000GWh, or roughly 11% of the annual figure you gave for the EU. Perhaps 1/3rd of the amount that will be stored, in this example, from one single company, in one single year. If we consider 1/10th of the hoped for production, but from 10 companies, then that would still equal the storage needed for the EU in just 3yrs.

I appreciate that this is just an example you gave, and the US Tesla targets are medium term, but hopefully, with context, this looks fine.


For fun, sticking with the 30GWh Tesla factory, and just assuming 10 such factories in Europe, though of course actual production will scale way, way past that, then we have an annual production of 300GWh pa, which if used for grid storage (purely an example for the purposes of the discussion), again cycling once per day, then we have ~110TWh (109,500GWh), or about 3.3% of annual consumption, so ~10yrs of production would provide for 1/3rd of the energy to be stored where demand and supply don't match.

I'm not suggesting for a second that all storage will be via batteries, certainly not just Lithium based ones, but I think it's helpful to show that the scale needed over the next 30yrs, isn't nearly as scary as it may first appear.

[Swwils]

The numbers are correct and there is no mixing. These are the generally accepted way to report use and storage pa.

I have not even started on the technology readiness for chemical grid storage at this scale. Which does not exist.