Energy requirements of FF versus EVs

[Little John]

The UK grid could accept a lot more renewable input than is used at present.
A doubling of both wind and PV capacity would greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production.

How much does a "doubling of wind and PV capacity" represent as a percentage of total energy use in this country?

To completely eliminate fossil fuel input into the grid would be a vast challenge, and probably not achievable under present circumstances.

Agreed

Grid scale battery storage would help, but is hugely expensive.
More interconnectors would help in order that we may import Norwegian hydro power in calm weather, and export UK wind power when available, thereby conserving water behind Norwegian dams for later use.

Grid scale batteries do not produce energy. They store it. My question was about the source of the energy and the extent to which it can replace other sources.

Biomass may have a part to play for peak demands

So it may. But, again, that is just a vague aspirational statement devoid of actual hard predictions.

To repeat the question:

How much capacity, in terms of renweables, does it take to entirely replace the carbon input into the national electric grid? Take any form of renewable you want for the comparison. Or, use a combination. So, for example, how much acerage of wind turbines or solar panels?

Do you know?

[PS_RalphW]

Mygridgb.co.uk wind and solar 21% of production in last year.

doubling it would reduce fossil fuel production to 23% if all else remains the same.

Almost all wind turbines are being built offshore because tories have effectively banned onshore. Therefore zero land acreage.

Solar is a much smaller source in the UK, more expensive, more intermitent, more intrusive at grid scale. Water based solar is beginning to be built on lakes.

Grid scale biomass is not really renewable. At less it has a lower carbon footprint than the coal it replaced. 7% of production. Coal is history. 3% of production and gone by 2025. Was 70% in my childhood.


The UK target is to cut CO2 intensity to 100g/KWh by 2030.
Currently 250. Halved in the last decade. Demand is down too, so total emissions have more than halved. Doubling wind and solar will halve it again.

Unfortunately. Nuclear is on the way out. Chances of new build to replace the current fleet on time is almost nil, and hugely expensive, and very inflexible, cannot be adjusted to demand

Wind power is a huge success. Emissions from transport are rising. Savings from insulating housing stock have been negligible. We still build terrible houses with huge heating needs. We have outsourced manufacturing to CO2 intensive China and India.

We will probably never reach zero CO2 electricity. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the excellent.

[PS_RalphW]

The US is heading in the same direction in spite of Trump. They are 10 - 15 years behind us, but Renewables are winning on economic grounds alone. Peakoilbarrel.com.

[vtsnowedin]

An interesting bit here from California.

5ï‚·Wind and solarenergy can supply low or zero variable costenergybut alone are not firm sources of capacity; andï‚·While self-generationfrom rooftop solar systemscanoffset the need to obtain electricity from bulk power stations, as in a zero-netenergy home, this may not reduce the need to obtain transmission and distribution capacity from a utility.Given the findings of the EPRI report and that roughly 9,000 MW of self-generation capacity has been installed in California as of October 31, 2016,6determining optimal and efficient levels oftransmission and distribution capacity will be increasingly importantas distributed energy resources continue to interconnect to the grid.

That is 9000MW of a March peak demand 23,000MW
I can't seem to get the related chart to copy and paste here but it is interesting to see the year by year progress. Also that the increase in solar PV has increased the problem of meeting demand after sundown as more stations have to be brought online quickly due to their lower midday starting point. Page 11 of this report if you care to see it.
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/C ... Report.pdf

[kenneal - lagger]

I often hear from the proponents of nuclear that renewables aren't reliable without battery or other back up, such as nuclear obviously. I think that in practice it will be nuclear that isn't usable without battery backup as, as Ralph says, nuclear isn't controllable. So nuclear stations, if they exist in the future, will have to be run full whack and, if they are oversupplying, their over supply will be put to battery and true renewables will kept running at full whack as well as their "fuel" doesn't cost anything. In extremis, yes, renewables will have to be shut down and electricity will be more expensive due to the forced use of very expensive, uncontrollable nuclear power.

[vtsnowedin]

While nuclear plants usually run "full wack" for economic reasons they do have control rods and can be throttled down.

French Nuclear Plants

In France[4], more than 75% of electricity is generated by nuclear power plants. The high level of nuclear power in France requires that some French nuclear power plants operate flexibly to respond to hourly, daily, and weekly variations in electricity demand.

To provide this flexible operation, French nuclear power plants can operate in baseload mode, primary/secondary frequency control mode, or load following mode.

Primary frequency control mode involves real-time output variation to maintain system frequency. Secondary frequency control mode is similar, with nuclear power plant output varied over longer periods to balance larger system demand and frequency variations.

Load following mode involves a variable load programme with load changes at varying ramp rates for 24 hours. In load following mode, some units may operate as low as 50% of rated power.

To implement these flexible operation modes, French nuclear plants use two types of control rods. Normal control rods are supplemented with grey rods that have a lower neutron capture effectiveness. Grey control rods and primary coolant temperature variation allows significant operating flexibility for French nuclear plants.

Based on the experience in France and other European countries (e.g., Germany), European Utility Requirements (EUR) specifications call for new reactor designs to be capable of flexible operation that will allow both frequency control and load following.

Some of the French flexible operation modes may be possible for U.S. nuclear power plants.

https://nuclear-economics.com/12-nuclear-flexibility/
If the French can do it so can the UK.

[kenneal - lagger]

I bow to new information.

It will however probably more expensive to reduce the supply from nuclear power than renewables because of the contracts that have been given (away?) to the nuclear suppliers to get them to build their stations in the UK. There is competition to build renewables in the UK whereas the government are begging people to build nuclear power to support the country's military nuclear program.

[careful_eugene]

While nuclear plants usually run "full wack" for economic reasons they do have control rods and can be throttled down.

French Nuclear Plants

In France[4], more than 75% of electricity is generated by nuclear power plants. The high level of nuclear power in France requires that some French nuclear power plants operate flexibly to respond to hourly, daily, and weekly variations in electricity demand.

To provide this flexible operation, French nuclear power plants can operate in baseload mode, primary/secondary frequency control mode, or load following mode.

Primary frequency control mode involves real-time output variation to maintain system frequency. Secondary frequency control mode is similar, with nuclear power plant output varied over longer periods to balance larger system demand and frequency variations.

Load following mode involves a variable load programme with load changes at varying ramp rates for 24 hours. In load following mode, some units may operate as low as 50% of rated power.

To implement these flexible operation modes, French nuclear plants use two types of control rods. Normal control rods are supplemented with grey rods that have a lower neutron capture effectiveness. Grey control rods and primary coolant temperature variation allows significant operating flexibility for French nuclear plants.

Based on the experience in France and other European countries (e.g., Germany), European Utility Requirements (EUR) specifications call for new reactor designs to be capable of flexible operation that will allow both frequency control and load following.

Some of the French flexible operation modes may be possible for U.S. nuclear power plants.

https://nuclear-economics.com/12-nuclear-flexibility/
If the French can do it so can the UK.

We have a power station in North Wales (Dinorwyg) that can be switched on or off in a matter of seconds. It's a pumped storage system so water is pumped to a high reservoir during the off peak and released through the turbines when there is high demand. This station is used to control the frequency and load. It's also well worth a visit for anyone in the area.

[kenneal - lagger]

There's also one in Scotland but suitable sites are very rare and I think that there are three in the UK which have all been used.

[adam2]

Please think twice before adding to this thread, as it is a near duplicate of an existing discussion, and there is little merit in having multiple threads on the same subject.

The merits of EVs and how the electricity for charging them is to be produced, may be discussed here.
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=25647