Coming shortage of UK generating capacity?

[fuzzy]

Electric domestic heating is the knife edge which the gov is too stupid/corrupt to deal with. Natural gas, which has been corruptly wasted for electricity generation, is uniquely useful for domestic heating. Once cheap methane is no longer an option, we will be forced to use electric heating. This is a situation the UK has never tried. When the cities grew, there was coal for space heating and 'town gas' for cooking and lighting. When we change to all electric, we will forced into a sudden massive electric shortage. I can see a crash nuclear program appearing.

[Potemkin Villager]

Somebody should try proposing a nuclear power station with combined heat an power scheme on the banks of the Thames not far from Westminster.

[vtsnowedin]

Somebody should try proposing a nuclear power station with combined heat an power scheme on the banks of the Thames not far from Westminster.

What to do with the heat in the summer would be the question.

[kenneal - lagger]

The Venerable Beeb report that energy efficiency has had a greater impact on elecricity demand than renewables have:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46741346

The new analysis of government figures comes from the environmental analysis website Carbon Brief.

Its author says EU product standards on light bulbs, fridges, vacuum cleaners and other appliances have played a substantial part in reducing energy demand.

Provisional calculations show that electricity generation in the UK peaked around 2005. But generation per person is now back down to the level of 1984 (around 5 megawatt hours per capita).

Of course, they neglect to say that efficiency gains will taper off, whereas renewables can (at least in theory) keep on growing. They also mention EU standards...

The Beeb like to support the Remain campaign wherever they can unfortunately.

Getting back on thread, as the saying goes, "Negawatts are cheaper than Megawatts", so going for less rather than new generation should always come first.

[kenneal - lagger]

Somebody should try proposing a nuclear power station with combined heat an power scheme on the banks of the Thames not far from Westminster.

What to do with the heat in the summer would be the question.

I think that there is a touch of irony/sarcasm/British humour in that comment, VT. The inhabitants of London would never tolerate a nuke anywhere near their city to provide the electricity that they so profligately use.

I have been suggesting for quite some time that our national nuclear waste repository should sited be in the extensive clay layers beneath London so that the residual heat could be used to heat the city during the winter. No one seems very keen on the idea, unfortunately.

[careful_eugene]

I have been suggesting for quite some time that our national nuclear waste repository should sited be in the extensive clay layers beneath London so that the residual heat could be used to heat the city during the winter. No one seems very keen on the idea, unfortunately.

Unfortunately you can't switch it off, have you been on the tube in summer?

[vtsnowedin]

I am very aware of the NIMBY syndrome but decided to ignore the shot and speak to the practicalities.( a bit sarcastic in itself) The most useful use of waste heat is to heat buildings in winter but that requires close proximity.
Might we in some point in the future find the niceties of placing nuke plants in other peoples yards have to be abandoned for the practicality of needing to scavenge every BTU of heat from any energy source available?

[Potemkin Villager]

Maybe not so much NIMBY as NIAMCOANL (not in a marginal constituency or anywhere near London). I remember large scale chp being promoted in the 70s and 80s to reduce emissions from UK coal fired power stations but never gaining much traction.

Indeed the problem is that CHP is heat demand led and not electrical demand led. I believe the Soviet Union, with a more cavalier attitude to radiation risk and public opinion built a number of concerns with a high constant heat demand around some of their nukes (including horticulture).

[adam2]

The position looks interesting with regards to next week, which is reliably forecast to be much colder.

Figures at present are
demand----------42
CCGT-------------20.7
Nuclear-----------5
Coal--------------3.6
Wind--------------8.5

If demand reaches 50 next week, entirely foreseeable in cold weather, then the margin looks very tight.

Another 4 is probably available from coal, and another 4 from CCGT should be available, which at first sight looks sufficient.

If however the wind drops and only produces 2.5, then that leaves another 6 to find.
being optimistic
5 more from coal
5 more from CCGT
1.5 more from hydro and pumped storage
0.5 more OCGT.
2 More from imports

14 extra hopefully available.

To meet another 8 of foreseeable demand AND a possible reduction in wind of 6.
Just about enough, provided that the French can spare us 2, despite the severe weather in France, AND provided that wind does not drop below 2.5 AND provided that nothing breaks.

We will probably muddle through as we usually do, but it looks very tight for the beginning of next week.
Unless of course it remains windy in which case we will be fine.

All figures in GW, rounded, and as shewn on Gridwatch.

[adam2]

Saved by the wind ! twice.

Last Friday evening the margin of available capacity versus demand looked very tight, but the wind increased more or less as the evening peak load approached and all was well.
Last night (21/01/2019) the position was very similar was a potential shortfall being averted by an increase in wind for the evening peak.

We even exported to France.

Today the load is high but not exceptional and with a modest 2Gw from solar and a few Gw from wind we are again exporting to France.

[Potemkin Villager]

Last Friday evening the margin of available capacity versus demand looked very tight, but the wind increased more or less as the evening peak load approached and all was well.
Last night (21/01/2019) the position was very similar was a potential shortfall being averted by an increase in wind for the evening peak.

This was very fortuitous and of course could not be relied on!

Various commentators in the msm have been discussing the effect of the potential loss of low carbon base load nuclear plant in the event replacements for near end of life plant are not constructed as is currently likely.

One comment was that "base load is so 20th century" and the suggestion made that renewables and energy storage could do away with base load plant all together.

I wonder how that one would work?

[adam2]

The likely abandonment of new build nuclear is of little near term concern since it would not have produced any power for some years if built.

In the longer term, managing a grid system without nuclear of fossil fuel base load plant will be a considerable challenge. Not insurmountable though, options include.

More pumped storage schemes.
Limited FF burning at times of low renewable input.
Limited biofuel use at times of limited renewable input.
Increase capacity at existing hydroelectric dams. 500Mw for six hours a day is much more useful than 125Mw 24/7. 1000Mw for nearly 1,000 hours a year would be better still.
Shift more consumption to times of relatively plentiful supply by selective pricing. EV charging, and bulk water heating and large air conditioning schemes are ideal loads.
More interconnectors, especially to Norway with its plentiful hydroelectric power.
Grid scale battery storage is starting to look attractive following recent advances.
Tidal power is more controllable than other renewables.

[emordnilap]

TEQs would much to reduce demand too.

Even a ‘tame’ (I hesitate on that word because the TEQ scheme is already extremely simple and benign) version, just confined to electricity, would help - but will cannot be introduced as long as electricity remains Thatcherised.

[fuzzy]

off peak tariffs have been a failure for 50 years. The supply companies are allowed to gouge a much higher tariff in the day making it uneconomic for practical use. They had a shrinking non standardised window of cheap hours instead of the true 9 pm - 6am off-peak demand.

[Potemkin Villager]

Indeed a very considerable challenge!

When you tot it all up and figure in it all having to be done whilst maintaining a 24/7 supply, it will come to a pretty huge investment. This means that the current cost comparisons being made between say offshore wind and nuclear are very misleading.

It probably would turn into as great a cost overrun nightmare as nuclear so there is the question as to who would be willing to bankroll all this complex new infrastructure? Even significantly altering the load duration profile of the UK itself would be a very challenging project and not for the faint hearted. Leading on such a project would have as many political as practical challenges.

Then "Plan B" is currently scarcely even being considered. Now where have I heard that one?