EDF confirms funding for Sizewell C

[nowty]

In addition to the kitchen sink we need at least 200GW wind,100GW sun, 10GW nuclear, 10GW other, 10GW/200GWh utility storage, 20GW standby gas, 20GW interconnectors(to export the excess). Thats the nature of the problem.

So when no wind and sun we have 20GW clean production, 10GW storage and 20GW gas. This will require serious demand shifting from evening peak.

When max RE we have 310GW production and this will require curtailment,flow batts, H2 production and demand shifting by price.

Funny you came up with that 50 GW number.

I checked back yesterday on Gridwatch for data during early March 2016 (Beast from the East) and we were peaking demand at about 50 GW. At that time of 50 GW demand, it was met with 14 GW of coal, 21 GW gas, 7 GW of nuke, 1 GW wind, 2 GW biomass, 1GW Hydro, 1GW Pumped Hydro + 3 GW of interconnectors (2GW from France). Solar was zero cos it was dark.

If that was to re-occur with little wind, no solar and fecked French nukes, I'm not sure what we do now with only 2 GW coal, 2 GW biomass and 5 GW nukes. There aint enough gas to make up the difference and even the gas could become constrained.

[Oldgreybeard]

In addition to the kitchen sink we need at least 200GW wind,100GW sun, 10GW nuclear, 10GW other, 10GW/200GWh utility storage, 20GW standby gas, 20GW interconnectors(to export the excess). Thats the nature of the problem.

So when no wind and sun we have 20GW clean production, 10GW storage and 20GW gas. This will require serious demand shifting from evening peak.

When max RE we have 310GW production and this will require curtailment,flow batts, H2 production and demand shifting by price.

Funny you came up with that 50 GW number.

I checked back yesterday on Gridwatch for data during early March 2016 (Beast from the East) and we were peaking demand at about 50 GW. At that time of 50 GW demand, it was met with 14 GW of coal, 21 GW gas, 7 GW of nuke, 1 GW wind, 2 GW biomass, 1GW Hydro, 1GW Pumped Hydro + 3 GW of interconnectors (2GW from France). Solar was zero cos it was dark.

If that was to re-occur with little wind, no solar and fecked French nukes, I'm not sure what we do now with only 2 GW coal, 2 GW biomass and 5 GW nukes. There aint enough gas to make up the difference and even the gas could become constrained.

Very good point. It's too easy to just look back over recent electricity demand and assume we only need around 40GW or so. Probably doesn't take much of a cold snap to push that up to the point where we no longer have the capacity available to meet the demand.

I wonder how likely it is that we will get a very cold, yet windless, period in winter?

I seem to remember reading some years ago that the final backstop in an electricity crisis were fields of diesel generators that could be fired up to keep the other utilities running in the event of a generation shortage. I think the big utility companies get paid to have such generation available, so they can be turned off from the grid to reduce demand.

[Mart]

In addition to the kitchen sink we need at least 200GW wind,100GW sun, 10GW nuclear, 10GW other, 10GW/200GWh utility storage, 20GW standby gas, 20GW interconnectors(to export the excess). Thats the nature of the problem.

So when no wind and sun we have 20GW clean production, 10GW storage and 20GW gas. This will require serious demand shifting from evening peak.

When max RE we have 310GW production and this will require curtailment,flow batts, H2 production and demand shifting by price.

Funny you came up with that 50 GW number.

I checked back yesterday on Gridwatch for data during early March 2016 (Beast from the East) and we were peaking demand at about 50 GW. At that time of 50 GW demand, it was met with 14 GW of coal, 21 GW gas, 7 GW of nuke, 1 GW wind, 2 GW biomass, 1GW Hydro, 1GW Pumped Hydro + 3 GW of interconnectors (2GW from France). Solar was zero cos it was dark.

If that was to re-occur with little wind, no solar and fecked French nukes, I'm not sure what we do now with only 2 GW coal, 2 GW biomass and 5 GW nukes. There aint enough gas to make up the difference and even the gas could become constrained.

Very good point. It's too easy to just look back over recent electricity demand and assume we only need around 40GW or so. Probably doesn't take much of a cold snap to push that up to the point where we no longer have the capacity available to meet the demand.

I wonder how likely it is that we will get a very cold, yet windless, period in winter?

I seem to remember reading some years ago that the final backstop in an electricity crisis were fields of diesel generators that could be fired up to keep the other utilities running in the event of a generation shortage. I think the big utility companies get paid to have such generation available, so they can be turned off from the grid to reduce demand.

Hiya OGB, you're right about the diesel generators, but they are one of the services that batteries are now winning contracts for. FFR and peaker services are a couple of examples where the economics of batteries started to shine through sooner, than simply arbitrage services.

Things are changing fast, with loads of positives.

[openspaceman]

Thirty five years ago the chap that used to look after my plant went to work for a firm that serviced generators at larger supermarkets. He said they would test them at times of peak demand and the supermarket was paid for the electricity exported.

[smegal]

Thirty five years ago the chap that used to look after my plant went to work for a firm that serviced generators at larger supermarkets. He said they would test them at times of peak demand and the supermarket was paid for the electricity exported.

That is pretty common during triad periods.

https://smarterbusiness.co.uk/blogs/faq ... d-charges/

[Swwils]

Hydro is also not useful for grid frequency stability as it takes days to dispatch.

[ALAN/ALAN D]

Do we want EDF to get involved in Sizewell C

"Right now, 28 French EDF reactors are offline due to corrosion safety problems. EDF is essentially bankrupt due to 43billon euro (£37.7billion) debts, facing up to a 100billion euro (£97.6billion) bill for French reactor life-extensions, all of which has forced Macron to fully nationalise EDF, to the detriment of the French economy."

[Swwils]

In addition to the kitchen sink we need at least 200GW wind,100GW sun, 10GW nuclear, 10GW other, 10GW/200GWh utility storage, 20GW standby gas, 20GW interconnectors(to export the excess). Thats the nature of the problem.

So when no wind and sun we have 20GW clean production, 10GW storage and 20GW gas. This will require serious demand shifting from evening peak.

When max RE we have 310GW production and this will require curtailment,flow batts, H2 production and demand shifting by price.

Funny you came up with that 50 GW number.

I checked back yesterday on Gridwatch for data during early March 2016 (Beast from the East) and we were peaking demand at about 50 GW. At that time of 50 GW demand, it was met with 14 GW of coal, 21 GW gas, 7 GW of nuke, 1 GW wind, 2 GW biomass, 1GW Hydro, 1GW Pumped Hydro + 3 GW of interconnectors (2GW from France). Solar was zero cos it was dark.

If that was to re-occur with little wind, no solar and fecked French nukes, I'm not sure what we do now with only 2 GW coal, 2 GW biomass and 5 GW nukes. There aint enough gas to make up the difference and even the gas could become constrained.

Welcome to the reality.

For people talking about hydro, it's unique case and very complex to build out, literally cannot be accelerated.

[Swwils]

Do we want EDF to get involved in Sizewell C

"Right now, 28 French EDF reactors are offline due to corrosion safety problems. EDF is essentially bankrupt due to 43billon euro (£37.7billion) debts, facing up to a 100billion euro (£97.6billion) bill for French reactor life-extensions, all of which has forced Macron to fully nationalise EDF, to the detriment of the French economy."

This is a little unfair and simplified take. EDF was operating uncorrected (political) under the impression that the fleet would be reduced by 50% a few years after the 2012(?) greens deal.



We are already "late" on nuclear replacements. There has been a real problem with people assuming nuclear will remain there providing stable power forever... Meanwhile time drags on.

[Oldgreybeard]

I think it's also worth remembering that EDF has always been partly state owned and is very heavily influenced by the French government and that has underpinned some of their decisions, especially the strategic ones regarding nuclear. The fact that there has been a shift in French government policy is the reason for at least some of the issues EDF have had in France, as @Swwils refers to. Unlike the UK, France didn't fully privatise it's electricity generation, distribution and supply system, but has always retained some degree of ownership and control. The name EDF is a give away, literally "Electricity of France".