Wind Power and UK Energy Use

[Bald Rick]

Of course by 2030 we will have significantly greater capacity of both onshore and offshore wind and Solar PV versus the level of demand.

We’ll have significantly more this time next year! Latest estimate is that 3-3.5GW of new solar comes online this year alone. And Dogger Bank should (finally) start generating big numbers this year, as will a coulle of other GW scale windfarms.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

We’ll have significantly more this time next year! Latest estimate is that 3-3.5GW of new solar comes online this year alone. And Dogger Bank should (finally) start generating big numbers this year, as will a coulle of other GW scale windfarms.

Dogger Bank is at least connected into MITS where there is plenty of transmission capacity. Anything added in Scotland is going to face being constrained when wind speeds are high as the Scottish MITS has the equivalent of WCML upgrade going on it for several years which leaves it short of capacity. The most recent Scottish windfarm Seagreen has spent more time being constrained that it has run. Of course it doesn't matter to the windfarm operator as they still receive the same payment thy would have if generated and NESO has to then source the power from elsewhere which is largely gas generation. At least with solar farms they are much more widely dispersed across the network but at the forecasted build out rates the grid is going to become saturated and on high solar high wind days we are going to be constraining off a lot of wind. Really all solar should have been forced to include 2-4hrs of battery storage as part of the build so all this energy is wasted.

 

[telstarbox]

Solar is doing nearly 11GW at the moment.

 

[brad465]

At the time of writing, overall generation is a mere 16.5GW, the lowest I've ever seen it. Demand is 22.5GW, so 6GW is imports, while wind is highest single generator at just below 6GW. I know night is obviously lowest demand, but this seems exceptionally low.

 

[HSTEd]

At the time of writing, overall generation is a mere 16.5GW, the lowest I've ever seen it. Demand is 22.5GW, so 6GW is imports, while wind is highest single generator at just below 6GW. I know night is obviously lowest demand, but this seems exceptionally low.

Weather has been rather warm, so little need for storage heaters to run.

16.5GW is small but not ludicrously so.

 

[The Ham]

At the time of writing, overall generation is a mere 16.5GW, the lowest I've ever seen it. Demand is 22.5GW, so 6GW is imports, while wind is highest single generator at just below 6GW. I know night is obviously lowest demand, but this seems exceptionally low.

At 06:15 it's still fairly similar numbers to your circa 23:45 numbers.

Slightly lower demand at 21.0GW and slightly higher generation at 16.9GW.

The energy mix is:
14.0% fossil fuels
Gas 2.95GW 14.0%
41.1% renewables of which
Solar 0.00GW 0.0%
Wind 8.57GW 40.8%
Hydroelectric 0.06GW 0.3%
25.4% other sources of which
Nuclear 4.51GW 21.5%
Biomass 0.83GW 4.0%
23.5% interconnectors
−4.0% storage

Not only is wind the highest percentage of any energy source it's higher than any of the other groupings and 50.8% of total generation.

It's also worth noting that even at £43.63/MW there is power being drawn to refill the pumped storage systems (the reason storage is running as a negative value).

 

[telstarbox]

Easter holidays so some people will be out of the country.

 

[The Ham]

Easter holidays so some people will be out of the country.

True, however the difference that's likely to make at 6:15 and 23:45 is likely to fairly small. The mild weather is likely to be a bigger impact.

 

[Meerkat]

Of course it doesn't matter to the windfarm operator as they still receive the same payment thy would have if generated

Does the windfarm really get the same money for not generating?!!

 

[HSTEd]

Does the windfarm really get the same money for not generating?!!

Yes.

They are guaranteed a price for all electricity generated or that could have been generated if curtailment occurs due to grid conditions.

The schlerotic nature of the electricity supply industry over the last 35 years means the grid is unable to accept huge amounts of electricity that has to be paid for regardless.
Something like ~5% of electricity bills is now required to pay for this, and the value is growing rapidly.

I'd argue that National Grid has spent three decades coasting on the CEGB inheritence, and now we all pay the price.
For example, using this handy monitoring tool, about 26GWh of electricity was thrown away on the 11th of April due to grid dysfunction.

More or less, we are currently having the debate about regional pricing of electricity because the industry is unwilling or unable to maintain a National Grid that is fit for purpose.

 

[Meerkat]

Yes.

They are guaranteed a price for all electricity generated or that could have been generated if curtailment occurs due to grid conditions.

The schlerotic nature of the electricity supply industry over the last 35 years means the grid is unable to accept huge amounts of electricity that has to be paid for regardless.
Something like ~5% of electricity bills is now required to pay for this, and the value is growing rapidly.

I'd argue that National Grid has spent three decades coasting on the CEGB inheritence, and now we all pay the price.
For example, using this handy monitoring tool, about 26GWh of electricity was thrown away on the 11th of April due to grid dysfunction.

More or less, we are currently having the debate about regional pricing of electricity because the industry is unwilling or unable to maintain a National Grid that is fit for purpose.

But (ignoring climate blah blah) would the cost of building the grid to accommodate the renewables being in the wrong place have/will cost more?

 

[Trainbike46]

But (ignoring climate blah blah) would the cost of building the grid to accommodate the renewables being in the wrong place have/will cost more?

Grid infrastructure would need to be upgraded even if there were no renewables, as the electricity demand will go up due to more electric vehicles, electrified industrial processes, and electric heating (e.g. heat pumps).

The issue is that, clearly, grid upgrades haven't been done enough over the last ~20 years. This is not just an issue in the UK, both the Netherlands and Germany have similar issues.

Not being able to get the electricity supply needed harms industry in particular, so we really need to get this sorted.

 

[HSTEd]

But (ignoring climate blah blah) would the cost of building the grid to accommodate the renewables being in the wrong place have/will cost more?

I tried to estimate the payback time of a ~765kV power line from Scotland into England that would enable the export of several more gigawatts of wind power and slash curtailment (in the short term) to nearly nothing

I calculated a payback time in the months.

 

[Meerkat]

Grid infrastructure would need to be upgraded even if there were no renewables, as the electricity demand will go up due to more electric vehicles, electrified industrial processes, and electric heating (e.g. heat pumps).

That’s local infrastructure, not long distance infrastructure to solve the generation being far away from the demand.

 

[HSTEd]

That’s local infrastructure, not long distance infrastructure to solve the generation being far away from the demand.

The projected increase in electricity demand will put far more stress on the transmission system than the distribution system.

THe distribution system is more limited by coverage than by the actual amount of electricity distributed.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I'd argue that National Grid (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the industry) has spent three decades coasting on the CEGB inheritence, and now we all pay the price.
For example, using this handy monitoring tool, about 26GWh of electricity was thrown away on the 11th of April due to grid dysfunction.

I initially agreed with this, thought a bit more and blamed the energy networks, and then thought a bit more and blamed the politicians...
National Grid and its peers fundamentally want to build lots of new stuff because their returns are linked to a regulated asset base. Grow the assets and this grows the revenue (and profit).

Government and Ofgem are not stupid, so they kept the cost of networks (and our bills down) by regulating the networks to deliver more with less, scrutinising capital programmes on the basis of "are they needed now?", not "will they be needed at some point in the future?" - i.e. Ofgem's model was established for a "business as usual" electricity system rather than a transforming system.

But then Ofgem could not change this without political support. Building transmission networks is controversial because most people do not like pylons, and of course they are all ultimately paid from out of our bills. In 2010 the industry consensus was that nuclear and CCS would do most of the heavy lifting on decarbonisation. Offshore wind was being built, but nobody was talking about the build rate that we're now expecting out to 2030 and beyond. So a key question (that led me to blame politicians!) is "How long did it take for tranmission investment to get the political support it needed in order to happen?"

There may be a better date, but perhaps the Offshore Wind Sector Deal in March 2019 was a key moment. It was implausible for Theresa May to commit to this target without her team understanding the implications for transmission investment before 2030. It was then 3 1/2 years later in December 2022 when Ofgem announced its decision on the ASTI Programme. Some of the ASTI projects are now moving into the delivery phase, and based across the issues above

 

[Bald Rick]

I tried to estimate the payback time of a ~765kV power line from Scotland into England that would enable the export of several more gigawatts of wind power and slash curtailment (in the short term) to nearly nothing

I calculated a payback time in the months.

What costs did you allow for gaining the necessary consents?

 

[takno]

What costs did you allow for gaining the necessary consents?

If you get it built really fast you could get it to pay back development costs before the council can get an order telling you to knock it down.

 

[HSTEd]

I initially agreed with this, thought a bit more and blamed the energy networks, and then thought a bit more and blamed the politicians...
National Grid and its peers fundamentally want to build lots of new stuff because their returns are linked to a regulated asset base. Grow the assets and this grows the revenue (and profit).

I'd argue they are incentivised to spend lots of money on new stuff, not to actually solve problems because doing so weakens their ability to get more spending approved.

Hence why they keep building undersea cables from Scotland to England, or from Kent to Essex, rather than fixing the grid once and for all.

Government and Ofgem are not stupid, so they kept the cost of networks (and our bills down) by regulating the networks to deliver more with less, scrutinising capital programmes on the basis of "are they needed now?", not "will they be needed at some point in the future?" - i.e. Ofgem's model was established for a "business as usual" electricity system rather than a transforming system.

It seems the bills were kept down by deliberately strangling the system and eating the grid's "seedcorn".

The CEGB's research and development apparatus was axed and resilience has been traded away to keep the party going for a couple of decades.
Now the music stops (and would have stopped even without the energy transition, which nonetheless provides a handy scapegoat).

What costs did you allow for gaining the necessary consents?

Well the payback time ignoring consents was about six months, since I was primarily interested in real costs to society. Consenting costs are functionally imposed because the government wants them after all, the size of them is entirely a political decision.

Even if the consents double the cost of the project you are still looking at a year or less.
The line would save the UK a billion pounds or so a year with a capital cost of about six hundred million or so.

(EDIT: Costs were based on the Quebec consenting regime, which I believe has little in the way of consenting costs, although an extensive programme of compensatory projects for environmental impact)

 

[Bald Rick]

Even if the consents double the cost of the project you are still looking at a year or less.
The line would save the UK a billion pounds or so a year with a capital cost of about six hundred million or so.

The new Norwich to Tilbury 400kV link is 184km and £800m. How long is your proposed link?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I initially agreed with this, thought a bit more and blamed the energy networks, and then thought a bit more and blamed the politicians...
National Grid and its peers fundamentally want to build lots of new stuff because their returns are linked to a regulated asset base. Grow the assets and this grows the revenue (and profit).

Government and Ofgem are not stupid, so they kept the cost of networks (and our bills down) by regulating the networks to deliver more with less, scrutinising capital programmes on the basis of "are they needed now?", not "will they be needed at some point in the future?" - i.e. Ofgem's model was established for a "business as usual" electricity system rather than a transforming system.

But then Ofgem could not change this without political support. Building transmission networks is controversial because most people do not like pylons, and of course they are all ultimately paid from out of our bills. In 2010 the industry consensus was that nuclear and CCS would do most of the heavy lifting on decarbonisation. Offshore wind was being built, but nobody was talking about the build rate that we're now expecting out to 2030 and beyond. So a key question (that led me to blame politicians!) is "How long did it take for tranmission investment to get the political support it needed in order to happen?"

There may be a better date, but perhaps the Offshore Wind Sector Deal in March 2019 was a key moment. It was implausible for Theresa May to commit to this target without her team understanding the implications for transmission investment before 2030. It was then 3 1/2 years later in December 2022 when Ofgem announced its decision on the ASTI Programme. Some of the ASTI projects are now moving into the delivery phase, and based across the issues above

The transmission operators put forward schemes from 2016 onwards to reinforce the grid so it could accept more renewable generation but OFGEM turned down their requests as you describe above. However, at the same time it was busily granting generation licences to Scottish windfarms in the full knowledge the transmission capacity wasn't there so it came up with connect and manage policy. Initially with low renewable penetration the amount of constrained volume was low but with every windfarm built in Scotland the problem just increased. The other flaw here is the way windfarms can bid into the generation stack at a low cost as the subsidy is separately reimbursed to them for every MWhr they actually generate. For the system operator (was NG now NESO) they have to accept lowest cost generation first then consider the consequences on grid capacity then have to constrain off generation to keep the transmission system safe and avoid trippings. Each generator provides a price at which they will constrain and NESO select the least cost bids for doing so. At the same time they have to find alternative generation to replace what they have constrained off and generally this means firing up the CCGTs. All the players know whats going on and the actions NESO will have to take so sit there like vultures ready to generate or not pricing themselves accordingly. Whats actually happening is the newish most efficient windfarms are being constrained off as they are more cost effective so don't need as much as older less efficient windfarms. Completely daft of course but thats the system. In CEGB days they would select the stations to operate both on least costs and within transmission constraints but of course they owned it all so they could take the appropriate decisions to keep the lights on the least cost to the consumer. What we have now is very complex but short of nationalisation can't be easily unpicked and any attempt to water down how much they make is likely to result in less investment in more renewables and make the CCGT operators, especially older stations that don't run as much, whether its financially viable to keep the station open.

Separately OFGEM have now consented to the Great British Grid Upgrade as a result of Labours 2030 NZ goal but already many of those schemes are slipping as global supply chains, particularly very high voltage transformers, are exceeding capacity pushing back deliveries. Of course the irony is the UK built out the grid in the 50/60's from entirely indigenous manufacturers now all long gone.

Personally I would revert the 2030 goal back to the Torys 2035 which was already very ambitious and get some investment back into the UK supply chain such that we can provide a higher UK content

 

[InTheEastMids]

Hence why they keep building undersea cables from Scotland to England, or from Kent to Essex, rather than fixing the grid once and for all.

There's planning for an awful lot of incremental upgrades to improve capacity as well as new HVDC links. Transmission Works Register currently has 6,669 entries for projects in various stages of development in order to accommodate new generation and ship the electricity around the country. New/expanded substations, increasing conductor cable sizes etc*

Secondly, If the generation is off the Scottish coast and the demand is largely East/South East England, then a subsea HVDC cable direct towards the point of demand seems like a decent idea
- Doesn't just create a load more demand for new onshore transmission schemes
- Much more limited local opposition, and fish don't have Nimby MPs seeking reelection to get angry at
- Higher efficiency of HVDC vs AC over long distance
- In at least some cases, bring it onshore where it can take advantage of existing infrastructure - typically where traditional power stations closed, such as Tilbury and Kingsnorth.

Finally it's important to keep opposition in mind. Onshore wind got killed off in England for basically 10 years in 2015, stopping it was perceived as a vote-winner and happened very quickly after the 2015 election. The number and scale of electricity generation projects in the New Connections/planning systems is almost certainly going to lead to similar opposition*. Adding hundreds or thousands of transmission towers to the mix does not help.

*People following the industry know that there are way more applications than GB is likely to need, so much of the generation will probably not get built and many transmission projects will not progress. But that is not what it may feel like at this point when there has been a land grab for development sites.

 

[HSTEd]

The new Norwich to Tilbury 400kV link is 184km and £800m. How long is your proposed link?

About 150km or so last time I checked.
EDIT: The baseline was Smeaton substation to the mass of substations in tyneside.

30km longer gets you to

There's planning for an awful lot of incremental upgrades to improve capacity as well as new HVDC links. Transmission Works Register currently has 6,669 entries for projects in various stages of development in order to accommodate new generation and ship the electricity around the country. New/expanded substations, increasing conductor cable sizes etc*

*People following the industry know that there are way more applications than GB is likely to need, so much of the generation will probably not get built and many transmission projects will not progress. But that is not what it may feel like at this point when there has been a land grab for development sites.

[I moved this comment out of order because I felt it made sense to consider it with the original statement]

As someone who is paid to, amongst other things, model the decarbonised UK energy system I am not sure I agree.

An offshore wind dominated system is likely to require an awful lot of capacity, assuming you don't make the highly convenient (for grid planners) assumption that magical supplies of zero carbon heating gas, be it hydrogen or otherwise, will appear.
Indeed, I am growing increasingly concerned that the heat pump rollout will fail, let alone anything more ambitious like hydrogen.
We are probably going to need well north of 150GW of offshore wind if any of these technological gambles fail.

Secondly, If the generation is off the Scottish coast and the demand is largely East/South East England, then a subsea HVDC cable direct towards the point of demand seems like a decent idea

The problem is that subsea HVDC cables really aren't suitable for moving large quantities of power around.
The decarbonisation challenge will require transfers the length of the country of tens of gigawatts.

Subsea cables are good to around 2500 per bipole. You are going to end up piling up dozens of them. With attendant large capital costs and limited industrial capacity (already causing delays).

- Higher efficiency of HVDC vs AC over long distance

In terms of electricity transmission, there aren't really any long distances in the British Isles.
The AC to DC breakeven distance for losses is hundreds of kilometres. In economic terms it is probably even longer.

Hydro Quebec's AC system, predominantly operated by AC (the DC connector was a later addition and is primarily a stability aid) operates over distances that would effectively put the entire electrical load in Brighton and all the generation at Dounreay!

- In at least some cases, bring it onshore where it can take advantage of existing infrastructure - typically where traditional power stations closed, such as Tilbury and Kingsnorth.

We will rapidly exhaust those sites though, which is why we are currently getting huge fights over masses of 400kV lines coming ashore in rural areas such as in Norfolk and Suffolk.

Finally it's important to keep opposition in mind. Onshore wind got killed off in England for basically 10 years in 2015, stopping it was perceived as a vote-winner and happened very quickly after the 2015 election. The number and scale of electricity generation projects in the New Connections/planning systems is almost certainly going to lead to similar opposition*. Adding hundreds or thousands of transmission towers to the mix does not help.

The huge costs of the offshore cable DC solution are going to drive bills up, and generate opposition to decarbonisation on that basis regardless.

If decarbonisation is to succeed it has to deliver plentiful, cheap, energy.
You can fight the NIMBYs over onshore power lines, or you can fight the "yellow vest" movement. I do not think you can avoid both.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There's planning for an awful lot of incremental upgrades to improve capacity as well as new HVDC links. Transmission Works Register currently has 6,669 entries for projects in various stages of development in order to accommodate new generation and ship the electricity around the country. New/expanded substations, increasing conductor cable sizes etc*

Secondly, If the generation is off the Scottish coast and the demand is largely East/South East England, then a subsea HVDC cable direct towards the point of demand seems like a decent idea

Eastern Green Links are a series of four 2GW DC cables linking Scotland to Mid to North England - two have been approved by OFGEM already but unlikely to be in use before 2030/31. These are the cables Nat Grid first requested OFGEM support back in 2016 but was denied now they are twice as expensive and these costs find there way to customers bills through the TNUoS (Transmission Network Use of System Charges) as do all the other grid upgrades. Reality is NZ aint going to be cheap and politicians and the Green brigade mislead people but if we need to save the planet we don't really have a choice just need the rest of the big polluters to get on the train. . Of course being honest and tellig consumers that saving the

Finally it's important to keep opposition in mind. Onshore wind got killed off in England for basically 10 years in 2015, stopping it was perceived as a vote-winner and happened very quickly after the 2015 election. The number and scale of electricity generation projects in the New Connections/planning systems is almost certainly going to lead to similar opposition*. Adding hundreds or thousands of transmission towers to the mix does not help.

New infrastructure planning bill is designed to deal with those groups should it get through parliamentary scrutiny unscathed

*People following the industry know that there are way more applications than GB is likely to need, so much of the generation will probably not get built and many transmission projects will not progress. But that is not what it may feel like at this point when there has been a land grab for development sites.

The Connections Reform process being run by NESO is basically going to filter that list down to what they deem is required for NZ 2030 and beyond.

 

[InTheEastMids]

New infrastructure planning bill is designed to deal with those groups should it get through parliamentary scrutiny unscathed

The Connections Reform process being run by NESO is basically going to filter that list down

Agree with your sentiments but it didn't take legislation to shut down the onshore wind industry in England, it was done through planning guidance.
This more state-directed energy system may also start to look more political. For example, I think it's quite likely that the majority of new onshore grid, solar and battery projects will be constructed disproportionately in Tory and LD voting constituencies. This correlation would be because both factors link to having more rural constituencies, but politicians will try and make out there's a causative link and it's "the New Labour NESO Wokerati trying to destroy Britain's farmers and rural communities blah blah...."

Indeed, I am growing increasingly concerned that the heat pump rollout will fail,

I agree. The boiler upgrade scheme has accelerated the market, but from a very low base and whilst grants help jump start the market, grants cannot keep going indefinitely and overcome the issues around skills base and the relative retail prices of gas and electricity. Not hearing nearly enough howls of pain resulting from nettles being grasped on this one.
One positive note is that the gas networks seem to have quietly acknowledged the game is up on things like hydrogen boilers.

With attendant large capital costs and limited industrial capacity (already causing delays)

I recall having a briefing, around 2008 or 2009 with a senior leader from a big player in the emerging offshore wind industry. They talked about challenges like bigger projects, supply chain capacity, commodity prices etc. These are similar issues that are now arising with transmission infrastructure and they do get fixed by investment, which in turn relies on a reasonably stable policy environment and national strategy, which offshore wind has largely had. I haven't seen a PM cancel a major energy project at a party conference to get a few cheers from the faithful.