Gas alert as demand and prices rise

Post by **mikepepler** » 22 Jul 2013, 13:02

You can see how the injection rate falls as the store pressure rises in this graph I've plotted:

Rough gas injection July 2013 by mikepepler, on Flickr.

I'm expecting some problems in the winter, unless we get a remarkably hot Sep/Oct...

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 23 Jul 2013, 00:35

mikepepler wrote:You can see how the injection rate falls as the store pressure rises in this graph I've plotted:

Rough gas injection July 2013 by mikepepler, on Flickr.

I'm expecting some problems in the winter, unless we get a remarkably hot Sep/Oct...

I'm not seeing what you are trying to show. I see GWH/day plotted vs. date but no pressure scale to show the result you point to. I would expect that fill rate would decline as the pressure increased just like watching the pressure gauge on a compressor tank slack off as the tank nears the pumps working pressure and only the top of each piston stroke passes any compressed gas into the tank.

Post by **adam2** » 23 Jul 2013, 08:02

The fill rate is declining as the long range storage fills, but the effect is relatively small.
It may be reasonably presumed that at times of plentiful gas supply, that the store is filled at the maximum possible rate.

A careful examination of the graph shows that this rate has declined in the last few months, though only slightly.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 23 Jul 2013, 13:22

I think what he meant was that the decline is the result of pushing the gas in against an increasing pressure due to the gas already there.

Meanwhile, people are talking about Radon in natural gas. It's been raised as in issue in the Fracking debate. Apparently it's there in all gas but decays once the gas is extracted. The 1/2-life (few days) means that storing gas somewhere oot-the-way before piping it into people's houses really is a good idea, independent of the supply situation.

Post by **adam2** » 23 Jul 2013, 14:22

There are 2 constraints involved that could become confused.

Firstly, considering ONLY the long range storage, as it fills up the pressure increases and the filling rate reduces, the decline is fairly small, but real and may be observed on the graph.
As it becomes more nearly full the slow down becomes more noticeable, or put another way, the second 50% takes longer to put in than the first 50%.

Secondly considering TOTAL storage, this includes the medium range storage that can be filled fairly quickly. Once it is full, then furthur storage is only available in the slower to fill long range storage.
Or put another way, If the LRS can be filled at 6X a day, and the MRS can also be filled at 6X a day, then the total filling capacity is clearly 12X a day, BUT ONLY UNTIL the MRS is full, the total filling rate then reduces to 6X a day, no matter how much gas might be available.

Both the increasing pressure in the LRS and the approaching fully filled state of the MRS will limit the total injection rate over the coming months to less than the 14% a month achieved so far.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Jul 2013, 18:32

RenewableCandy wrote: Meanwhile, people are talking about Radon in natural gas.

I bet that's really complicated. Radon comes from uranium decay in rocks like granite and gabbro - the igneous rocks that haven't already been round the sedimentary cycle and been rinsed of their radioactivity. The radon will get trapped in the same sort of structures as methane but since they come from very different sources there is bound to be a big variation in radon concentration from one gas field to another. I would expect this variation to be much bigger than that caused by whether or not the gas has been stored for a few extra months.

At least that's my first feeling, without knowing much about the topic. I could be wrong.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 23 Jul 2013, 18:54

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radonmarcellus.pdf

It would be another good scare tactic to use against fracking- frack gas and get lung cancer !

Post by **adam2** » 16 Aug 2013, 17:14

Total gas storage now about 70% full, but with summer nearly over it seems unlikely to reach 100% before we start drawing on it especialy if winter starts early.

Long range store filling at a nearly constant but slightly declining rate

Medium range storage fluctuates daily, but around a rising trend, but is nearly full.

Short range storage still nearly empty and has been slowly declining, but it looks as though filling has just started.

As reported elswhere though demand has dropped which will help a bit.
Provided that the weather is no colder than average, and the nukes work well, and there is plenty of wind we should scrape through.
If however we have a cold and long winter and a few nuclear breakdowns then it could be problematic.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 06 Sep 2013, 12:24

Saw this on the local paper's website. Not sure if the same story has already been posted here.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/setback ... _1_2369524

Far-reaching plans to build a gas storage site off the coast of north Norfolk have been dealt a blow by the government after it ruled out providing any subsidies.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 07 Sep 2013, 05:08

The government is obviously banking on shale gas and Climate Change!! Who needs gas storage when we will have masses of cheap gas and winters will all be warmer?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Sep 2013, 08:06

However sensible more storage capacity might be, since the government believes in privatising everything and subsidising nothing, it would be strange to expect a subsidy for a particular part of the gas industry. The wind energy industry is not expecting subsidies for batteries.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 07 Sep 2013, 14:07

biffvernon wrote:........ since the government believes in privatising everything and subsidising nothing, .........

You're forgetting the banks ....

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 07 Sep 2013, 16:27

biffvernon wrote:However sensible more storage capacity might be, since the government believes in privatising everything and subsidising nothing, it would be strange to expect a subsidy for a particular part of the gas industry. The wind energy industry is not expecting subsidies for batteries.

As I understand it, we are all surcharged on our electricity bills to pay for wind energy amongst others. That, to me, is a subsidy.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 08 Sep 2013, 21:10

And the fossil fuel industry is not charged the cost of a new planet to replace the one it has wrecked. Environmental costs are 'externalised'. It is an industry that is allowed to throw all its waste products up in the air for everybody else on the planet to deal with. This is a far more significant real subsidy.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 08 Sep 2013, 22:24

Batteries were made using fossil fuel resources, therefore the wind industry is as guilty of destruction as the rest. Why do you use the fossil fuel industry as an example of disguised subsidy? In response to your statement that the wind industry is not expecting subsidies for batteries, I just pointed that it is getting a handsome subsidy across the board. Bring the fossil fuel industry into it does not negate the wind subsidy.