UK Wind + Interconnectors = Net Zero?

[AE-NMidlands]

I thought the issue wasn't reserve power to meet demand but something guaranteeing that it stayed at 50Hz regardless of what else you switched in and out.
Nukes would do that well (as long as they were working!)
A

[Stinsy]

My understanding is that you need two things: 1) A huuuuge spinning mass. 2) The ability to increase and decrease the power keeping the mass spinning. The inflexibility of nuclear means it cannot fulfil this function hence why we're currently using gas and hence hydro would also work. That is my understanding anyway...

[dan_b]

A few links about 2025 and zero carbon planning

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/gr ... icity-2025

One line stands out

"Stability Pathfinder project is finding new ways to source inertia, through synchronous compensators, hydroelectric power stations or repurposed gas turbines, which means that by 2025, if the market again presents 100% zero carbon power, it will no longer need to reduce zero carbon generation."

With a bit more googling I found this from the National Grid on their Synchronous Compensator programme
https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/nat ... -contracts

I've never heard of a Giga Volt Amp Second before!

And a little further back was this programme for real-time measurement of Grid Inertia
https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/nat ... -measuring

This bit stood out "Hardware is set to include one of the world’s largest ultracapacitors, Reactive claims, which will ‘inject power’ into the grid. The response will then be measured."

[Countrypaul]

It appears that the definition of "Spinning Reserve" is not clear cut, and what we understand by it varies!

This article https://www.drax.com/power-generation/n ... frequency/ seems to give a reasonable overview.

My thoughts were that the inertia provided by the spinning masses provided the initial part of spinning reserve - I'm no longer sure that is the general view. The comments about nuclear are interesting as most nuclear plants in the UK can only provide intertia, however Hinckley C like most of the French plants will provide more than that like the FF plants.

[dan_b]

Good article thank you.

I'm assuming that the HVDC interconnectors are unable to provide any frequency control or inertia either?

[Stinsy]

Good article thank you.

I'm assuming that the HVDC interconnectors are unable to provide any frequency control or inertia either?

No because they’re DC!

[Marcus]

Good article thank you.

I'm assuming that the HVDC interconnectors are unable to provide any frequency control or inertia either?

No because they’re DC!

Being dc isn't the issue - they were planning /are using battery storage (dc) to provide stability and reserve. But you do need energy storage so you can draw energy from the grid if the frequency is high, and put energy into the grid if the frequency is too low, and HVDC interconnections don't have a lot of storage capacity - just the capacitance of the cables AFAIK.

Interesting to see tha nuclear doesn't provide storage beyond the spinning mass though - I had assumed that any thermal power plant could - but I guess with gas/coal/biomass you can turn up/down the steam into the turbine and then turn up/down the fuel into the burner fairly quickly to match, whereas nuke is difficult to control?

[AE-NMidlands]

Good article thank you.

I'm assuming that the HVDC interconnectors are unable to provide any frequency control or inertia either?

No because they’re DC!

Being dc isn't the issue - they were planning /are using battery storage (dc) to provide stability and reserve. But you do need energy storage so you can draw energy from the grid if the frequency is high, and put energy into the grid if the frequency is too low, and HVDC interconnections don't have a lot of storage capacity - just the capacitance of the cables AFAIK.

Interesting to see that nuclear doesn't provide storage beyond the spinning mass though - I had assumed that any thermal power plant could - but I guess with gas/coal/biomass you can turn up/down the steam into the turbine and then turn up/down the fuel into the burner fairly quickly to match, whereas nuke is difficult to control?

Suddenly turning down a nuke isn't easy:
I was working outside with someone from the nuclear industry when we noticed a big plume of steam going up from (possibly Heysham, maybe Hunterston) power station.
I commented that it looked like an emergency/unplanned release and his comment was something like "Yes, someone will have some explaining to do. The distilled water in the steam circuit is very expensive!"
A

[dan_b]

Pretty sure that the French nuclear fleet can "load follow" to some extent (which I take to mean can adjust output to maintain frequency based upon demand) but I guess as they went all in with nuclear it needed to. I suppose there must be efficiency and cost implications for building them to be able to do so - I think I read somewhere that Hinkley C could have had that capability (because it's based on the EPR?) but it was taken out of the design due to cost?

[Stinsy]

Pretty sure that the French nuclear fleet can "load follow" to some extent (which I take to mean can adjust output to maintain frequency based upon demand) but I guess as they went all in with nuclear it needed to. I suppose there must be efficiency and cost implications for building them to be able to do so - I think I read somewhere that Hinkley C could have had that capability (because it's based on the EPR?) but it was taken out of the design due to cost?

Yep, French nukes are unique in that regard. Infact they still run at full power, just dump the excess heat to slow the turbines. All very wasteful and all very necessary if you have that much nuclear on the grid.

Us lot with out solar and batteries want big inflexible power plants to keep overnight electricity cheap!