10 ms·

Balancing a nationwide power grid is very complex. Some energy sources can be started and stopped instantly, but are limited - water. Others are plentiful, but

Balancing a nationwide power grid is very complex. Some energy sources can be started and stopped instantly, but are limited - water. Others are plentiful, but unpredictable - wind. Others are predictable, but take a long time to start and stop - gas, coal(several hours), nuclear(1 day to start, fast to stop, but very expensive). A balanced grid will need all of them, will need them in quantities which can cover faults in the big producers(a nuclear reactor makes 700-800 MW). They will need them built in the right place, because while more power cables can be built, you can't transfer a lot of power on very long distances, for cost and grid stability reasons.

jamil7 4y ago
I always thought gas was quite quick to start which made it a good complement to renewables.
- sbradford26 4y ago
  It depends on the type of natural gas plant. Some of them are designed for efficiency which takes longer to spin up and down while some are peaker plants which can spin up in a matter of seconds/minutes.
- fundatus 4y ago
  Yep, 15 minutes to full load is not uncommon with gas plants.
- tomatocracy 4y ago
  The quickest gas generation (gas engines) can go from cold start to fully ramped up in 4-5 minutes. A typical OCGT/CCGT is a bit slower and has a higher start cost (and a CCGT won't reach peak efficiency for hours). Pumped storage hydro takes 20 seconds or so. However, turning generation on or off isn't the only way the grid is balanced in the short term - turning up/down tends to be a big part of it too and most conventional generation can do that faster (sometimes a lot faster) than startup/shutdown.
tialaramex 4y ago
> but take a long time to start and stop - gas Despite the insistence that Closed Cycle Gas Turbines can't react quickly, because they're by far the largest component that we could start and stop the UK does in fact very quickly increase and decrease output from the CCGTs. For example this morning 2.79GW at 0600 to 3.89 at 0700. There are much faster options, batteries, import, even the pumped storage is seconds instead of minutes - if available, but CCGT is just not that slow to change compared to the weather. In that same period the wind power went from 10.9GW to 11.4GW. 500MW is a lot of power but it's not more than 1.1GW
- radiowave 4y ago
  An interesting complicating factor here is that much of the UK's installed base of CCTG stations were built during the 90s with the intention of replacing many of the smaller coal-fired stations, which would typically be doing 2-shift operations (i.e., day and evening). Now, those CCGT stations are increasingly used to counterbalance renewables, and (as you point out) are now running on much shorter cycles than they were designed for. A report from a few years back (which I'm afraid I've utterly forgotten the source) examined the data on this, and argued that as a result of this changed pattern of use, these CCGT stations were now not achieving nearly the kind of efficiency figures they were designed for, which from a carbon point of view is not good news - we might still be emitting lots of the stuff, but just not getting as much practical benefit from it as we used to. Now, I'm not meaning to suggest that this is a disaster, or that is somehow invalidates the entire of concept of renewables, but it does point to the need to be careful about what we take to be a useful measure of progress - and that merely the quantity of supply to the grid in GWH isn't necessarily it. And the article under discussion here is of course picking away at another strand of this same idea - when we connect these generators together, it gives rise to system-level effects, and we need to be thinking about the outcomes, both beneficial and harmful, in system-level terms as well. (Edited for spelling.)
  - Reason077 4y ago
    It won't be long (perhaps in the next 2-3 years) before the UK grid will be able to operate for periods without any CCGTs running at all. We've already come quite close this winter, with record low CCGT output and record high wind turbine production. Wind turbine output, although variable, is also fairly predictable: so good modelling and scheduling should ensure that when CCGTs do operate, they can run as efficiently as possible and not be spinning up and down too frequently.
PaulHoule 4y ago
Nuclear power plants can vary their output faster than most people think, see https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... ... most of the modern light water nuclear reactors are capable (by design) to operate in a load following mode, i.e. to change their power level once or twice per day in the range of 100% to 50% (or even lower) of the rated power, with a ramp rate of up to 5% (or even more) of rated power per minute. One trouble is that changing the power output does put stress on components because of thermal expansion and contraction, potentially shortening their lifespan, but it something that can be designed for.
- Reason077 4y ago
  Most reactors in service operate at a constant load, and don't vary output according to demand. Certainly in the UK they do not. Sometimes reactors are operated for extended periods at reduced load for various reasons (eg: to conserve fuel and extend the time before a refuelling shutdown is required), but they don't vary output day-to-day.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Ramping it up is likely the problem, since all plants can reduce power on a dime by just varying the generator coil current I think. You could just keep it spinning nonstop without a load I suppose, but for anything but nuclear it's not gonna be economical.
  - Reason077 4y ago
    A nuclear power plant can't just "keep spinning without a load" - all that energy has to go somewhere! If a nuclear plant is disconnected from the grid (tripped), the nuclear reaction must be stopped (eg: by inserting control rods into the core).
    - moffkalast 4y ago
      Of course it can, just short the generator coils and you have a free brake. The turbine should then still have resistance and shouldn't overspeed. Or just idk, use it to pump some water in a loop or discharge through some resistors. Getting rid of power isn't that hard if you want to do it. Simplest solution would I suppose be to just have an outside radiator that brings the steam to cooling tower levels of manageability so you can throttle the turbine with just a valve. The thing is, they don't really want to do it if they can save fuel by shutting down.
Reason077 4y ago
> "(a nuclear reactor makes 700-800 MW)" 1.6 GW per reactor for the latest ones under construction (Hinkley Point C) and in development (Sizewell C). Each site has 2 reactors for a total of 2 x 2 x 1.6 GW = 6.4 GW. Although this is largely just replacing the UK's existing fleet of reactors, almost all of which will have shut down by the time Hinkley Point C comes online. Of the current 5 operating UK nuclear power stations, only Sizewell B is scheduled to operate beyond 2028. > "They will need them built in the right place, because while more power cables can be built, you can't transfer a lot of power on very long distances" One of the reasons offshore wind has been so economic & successful in the UK is they can usually plug in to existing, redundant transmission lines left behind by decommissioned coal and nuclear power stations, which are often on the coast. It's relatively cheap to connect to the grid when the infrastructure is already there waiting: you just need to build the cables from the turbines to the shore.
_visgean 4y ago
> Others are predictable, but take a long time to start and stop - gas, coal(several hours), nuclear(1 day to start, fast to stop, but very expensive). The start time is long but that does not say much about the overall operations. > Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant and https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/power-plants-cold-starts-and-ramp-rates/ https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/power-plants-cold-st... > In France, with an average of 2 reactors out of 3 available for load variations, the overall power adjustment capacity of the nuclear fleet equates to 21,000 MW (i.e. equivalent to the output of 21 reactors) in less than 30 minutes. https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/ https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power...
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  The variability of France’s nuclear fleet is harder on the generator (valves and structures susceptible to thermal stresses in particular), and a possible contributor to their inability to keep their fleet in good repair. Arguably, if cost effective, nuclear is best run at full output as consistently as possible, with other systems buffering that supply with demand (hydro storage, batteries, demand response, etc). https://www.laka.org/nieuws/2022/so-how-flexible-is-nuclear-power-in-france-now-really-17421 https://www.laka.org/nieuws/2022/so-how-flexible-is-nuclear-... https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/french-report-nuclear-power-plant-flexibility-at-edf/ https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/french-report-nuclear-power-...
gehsty 4y ago
You can transmit a lot of power long distances with HVDC systems. 2GW systems are in development (TenneT 2GW platform & 525kV DC cables) & HVDC interconnectors can be several hindered km long…
- midasuni 4y ago
  But it’s expensive and takes a long time. The U.K. isn’t building enough quickly enough to take benefit of production in the north. Maybe if variable prices encourages energy intensive demand to shift to Scotland that will help, but that’s not quick either.
  - gehsty 4y ago
    No power infrastructure is either quick or cheap. I would think a subsea interconnector would be quicker to build than an offshore windfarm (as there are fewer components - no turbines or structures, and even fewer cables!) The UK is leading the world in grid interconnection and offshore wind build out (though all owned by none UK entities), so if they aren’t building quickly enough I don’t know anyone who is….
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  The North Sea Link between Norway and the UK is already up and running and has a capacity of 1.4 GW. It is currently (10:53 UTC) supplying 3% of the UK load. See https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
paranoidrobot 4y ago
> Others are plentiful, but unpredictable - wind. I think it depends on how you define unpredictable. Wind power forecasting[1] is used pretty extensively as I understand it by all major windfarms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_forecasting#Uncertainty_of_wind_power_forecasts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_forecasting#Uncerta... [2] https://www.cerc.co.uk/forecasting/wind-energy.html https://www.cerc.co.uk/forecasting/wind-energy.html [3] https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/operational-forecasting/solar-and-wind-energy-forecasting/australian-wind-energy-forecasting-system https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e...
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  I believe GP meant by predictability "power is available for generation whenever we want it". What you are saying is that its possible to map out in the future when power is available for generation.
- jahewson 4y ago
  I think “intermittent” is what was meant.
- ccalloway 4y ago
  There is a hierarchy of time availability of power supply: 1. power available when you want it, and you can choose on the fly 2. power available when you want it as long as you know in advance 3. power available at a time that you don't choose, but you can predict 4. power available at a time that you can neither choose not predict Examples are (roughly) 1: gas or hydro, 2: nuclear or coal, 3: sun or tidal, 4: wind. You can also think of demand types that require each of these levels or better. Of course each of these categories contains its own sliding scale of how far in advance you have to decide or can predict. Wind is not completely unpredictable, but it is further down this hierarchy than almost any other source of generation. Moving generation up this hierarchy, or demand down it, is always going to give some benefit. Well designed power markets should make sure that there is some fair incentive for any such step.
entropicgravity 4y ago
HVDC is now a thing. Collecting solar in Northern Austrialia and sending it to Singapore over a 3800km long transmission line. Under construction now.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  The project has stalled due to the two billionaires funding the project having a “spat”.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Thank you. People laughed when I suggested an HVDC link between North America and Europe. Nordstream 1 was 1222km, and Britpipe now, is 60km shorter. Boston to Lisbon is 5100km. Churchill Falls (home of a giant hydro dam project in Labrador Canada which got screwed by Hydro-Quebec because the only via transit was through Quebec), would be just under 4000km subsea. The transit contract expires in 2039 I believe...
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    The current HVDC record is China, they run an almost 3300km line [1], but it's capable of only 12 GW transmission power. It really doesn't make much sense to connect Europe and North America. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity...
  - gregoriol 4y ago
    It wouldn't make much sense: eastern US/Canada and western Europe have about the same profile (same kind of wind/hydro/solar/... sources); it would make more sense to connect regions with different profiles, like the Scotland/England example of the article (high-wind/low-population to a high-population zone) or high-sunlight to a low-sunlight (like southern europe/northern africa to northern europe)
- fmajid 4y ago
  There's this incredible project to build a 10GW solar farm in Morocco (1/3 of UK peak consumption) and bring the power to the UK via HVDC cable. Amazingly they estimate only 10% losses despite being over 3800km long: https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ Surely HVDC links between Scotland and England could be built? And then there are pumped hydropower storage project like this one with a proposed storage capacity of 200 GWh and 1.5GW of power: https://www.coireglas.com https://www.coireglas.com In the worst case, couldn't the excess power simply be used in electrolyzers to generate hydrogen? They may not be very efficient but it's better than throwing free energy away.
seb1204 4y ago
The statement that we need all of them is not correct. Grid forming inverters and large battery storage will replace gas peak plants in the future. First to go are however the old coal and nuclear plants as they become unprofitable.
presentation 4y ago
How about redirecting excess nuclear energy to eg produce hydrogen fuel cells?
- Leherenn 4y ago
  Usually the problem with this kind of thing, is that the initial capex requirements are high, and it's just not profitable given how rarely it happens.
raverbashing 4y ago
Several power companies are using synchronous condensers with flywheels to increase inertia

jamil7 4y ago

I always thought gas was quite quick to start which made it a good complement to renewables.

sbradford26 4y ago
It depends on the type of natural gas plant. Some of them are designed for efficiency which takes longer to spin up and down while some are peaker plants which can spin up in a matter of seconds/minutes.
fundatus 4y ago
Yep, 15 minutes to full load is not uncommon with gas plants.
tomatocracy 4y ago
The quickest gas generation (gas engines) can go from cold start to fully ramped up in 4-5 minutes. A typical OCGT/CCGT is a bit slower and has a higher start cost (and a CCGT won't reach peak efficiency for hours). Pumped storage hydro takes 20 seconds or so. However, turning generation on or off isn't the only way the grid is balanced in the short term - turning up/down tends to be a big part of it too and most conventional generation can do that faster (sometimes a lot faster) than startup/shutdown.

tialaramex 4y ago

> but take a long time to start and stop - gas Despite the insistence that Closed Cycle Gas Turbines can't react quickly, because they're by far the largest component that we could start and stop the UK does in fact very quickly increase and decrease output from the CCGTs. For example this morning 2.79GW at 0600 to 3.89 at 0700. There are much faster options, batteries, import, even the pumped storage is seconds instead of minutes - if available, but CCGT is just not that slow to change compared to the weather. In that same period the wind power went from 10.9GW to 11.4GW. 500MW is a lot of power but it's not more than 1.1GW

radiowave 4y ago
An interesting complicating factor here is that much of the UK's installed base of CCTG stations were built during the 90s with the intention of replacing many of the smaller coal-fired stations, which would typically be doing 2-shift operations (i.e., day and evening). Now, those CCGT stations are increasingly used to counterbalance renewables, and (as you point out) are now running on much shorter cycles than they were designed for. A report from a few years back (which I'm afraid I've utterly forgotten the source) examined the data on this, and argued that as a result of this changed pattern of use, these CCGT stations were now not achieving nearly the kind of efficiency figures they were designed for, which from a carbon point of view is not good news - we might still be emitting lots of the stuff, but just not getting as much practical benefit from it as we used to. Now, I'm not meaning to suggest that this is a disaster, or that is somehow invalidates the entire of concept of renewables, but it does point to the need to be careful about what we take to be a useful measure of progress - and that merely the quantity of supply to the grid in GWH isn't necessarily it. And the article under discussion here is of course picking away at another strand of this same idea - when we connect these generators together, it gives rise to system-level effects, and we need to be thinking about the outcomes, both beneficial and harmful, in system-level terms as well. (Edited for spelling.)
- Reason077 4y ago
  It won't be long (perhaps in the next 2-3 years) before the UK grid will be able to operate for periods without any CCGTs running at all. We've already come quite close this winter, with record low CCGT output and record high wind turbine production. Wind turbine output, although variable, is also fairly predictable: so good modelling and scheduling should ensure that when CCGTs do operate, they can run as efficiently as possible and not be spinning up and down too frequently.

PaulHoule 4y ago

Nuclear power plants can vary their output faster than most people think, see https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... ... most of the modern light water nuclear reactors are capable (by design) to operate in a load following mode, i.e. to change their power level once or twice per day in the range of 100% to 50% (or even lower) of the rated power, with a ramp rate of up to 5% (or even more) of rated power per minute. One trouble is that changing the power output does put stress on components because of thermal expansion and contraction, potentially shortening their lifespan, but it something that can be designed for.

Reason077 4y ago
Most reactors in service operate at a constant load, and don't vary output according to demand. Certainly in the UK they do not. Sometimes reactors are operated for extended periods at reduced load for various reasons (eg: to conserve fuel and extend the time before a refuelling shutdown is required), but they don't vary output day-to-day.
moffkalast 4y ago
Ramping it up is likely the problem, since all plants can reduce power on a dime by just varying the generator coil current I think. You could just keep it spinning nonstop without a load I suppose, but for anything but nuclear it's not gonna be economical.
- Reason077 4y ago
  A nuclear power plant can't just "keep spinning without a load" - all that energy has to go somewhere! If a nuclear plant is disconnected from the grid (tripped), the nuclear reaction must be stopped (eg: by inserting control rods into the core).
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    Of course it can, just short the generator coils and you have a free brake. The turbine should then still have resistance and shouldn't overspeed. Or just idk, use it to pump some water in a loop or discharge through some resistors. Getting rid of power isn't that hard if you want to do it. Simplest solution would I suppose be to just have an outside radiator that brings the steam to cooling tower levels of manageability so you can throttle the turbine with just a valve. The thing is, they don't really want to do it if they can save fuel by shutting down.

Reason077 4y ago

> "(a nuclear reactor makes 700-800 MW)" 1.6 GW per reactor for the latest ones under construction (Hinkley Point C) and in development (Sizewell C). Each site has 2 reactors for a total of 2 x 2 x 1.6 GW = 6.4 GW. Although this is largely just replacing the UK's existing fleet of reactors, almost all of which will have shut down by the time Hinkley Point C comes online. Of the current 5 operating UK nuclear power stations, only Sizewell B is scheduled to operate beyond 2028. > "They will need them built in the right place, because while more power cables can be built, you can't transfer a lot of power on very long distances" One of the reasons offshore wind has been so economic & successful in the UK is they can usually plug in to existing, redundant transmission lines left behind by decommissioned coal and nuclear power stations, which are often on the coast. It's relatively cheap to connect to the grid when the infrastructure is already there waiting: you just need to build the cables from the turbines to the shore.

_visgean 4y ago

> Others are predictable, but take a long time to start and stop - gas, coal(several hours), nuclear(1 day to start, fast to stop, but very expensive). The start time is long but that does not say much about the overall operations. > Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant and https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/power-plants-cold-starts-and-ramp-rates/ https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/power-plants-cold-st... > In France, with an average of 2 reactors out of 3 available for load variations, the overall power adjustment capacity of the nuclear fleet equates to 21,000 MW (i.e. equivalent to the output of 21 reactors) in less than 30 minutes. https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/ https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power...

toomuchtodo 4y ago
The variability of France’s nuclear fleet is harder on the generator (valves and structures susceptible to thermal stresses in particular), and a possible contributor to their inability to keep their fleet in good repair. Arguably, if cost effective, nuclear is best run at full output as consistently as possible, with other systems buffering that supply with demand (hydro storage, batteries, demand response, etc). https://www.laka.org/nieuws/2022/so-how-flexible-is-nuclear-power-in-france-now-really-17421 https://www.laka.org/nieuws/2022/so-how-flexible-is-nuclear-... https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/french-report-nuclear-power-plant-flexibility-at-edf/ https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/french-report-nuclear-power-...

gehsty 4y ago

You can transmit a lot of power long distances with HVDC systems. 2GW systems are in development (TenneT 2GW platform & 525kV DC cables) & HVDC interconnectors can be several hindered km long…

midasuni 4y ago
But it’s expensive and takes a long time. The U.K. isn’t building enough quickly enough to take benefit of production in the north. Maybe if variable prices encourages energy intensive demand to shift to Scotland that will help, but that’s not quick either.
- gehsty 4y ago
  No power infrastructure is either quick or cheap. I would think a subsea interconnector would be quicker to build than an offshore windfarm (as there are fewer components - no turbines or structures, and even fewer cables!) The UK is leading the world in grid interconnection and offshore wind build out (though all owned by none UK entities), so if they aren’t building quickly enough I don’t know anyone who is….
kwhitefoot 4y ago
The North Sea Link between Norway and the UK is already up and running and has a capacity of 1.4 GW. It is currently (10:53 UTC) supplying 3% of the UK load. See https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

paranoidrobot 4y ago

> Others are plentiful, but unpredictable - wind. I think it depends on how you define unpredictable. Wind power forecasting[1] is used pretty extensively as I understand it by all major windfarms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_forecasting#Uncertainty_of_wind_power_forecasts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_forecasting#Uncerta... [2] https://www.cerc.co.uk/forecasting/wind-energy.html https://www.cerc.co.uk/forecasting/wind-energy.html [3] https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/operational-forecasting/solar-and-wind-energy-forecasting/australian-wind-energy-forecasting-system https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e...

abdullahkhalids 4y ago
I believe GP meant by predictability "power is available for generation whenever we want it". What you are saying is that its possible to map out in the future when power is available for generation.
jahewson 4y ago
I think “intermittent” is what was meant.
ccalloway 4y ago
There is a hierarchy of time availability of power supply: 1. power available when you want it, and you can choose on the fly 2. power available when you want it as long as you know in advance 3. power available at a time that you don't choose, but you can predict 4. power available at a time that you can neither choose not predict Examples are (roughly) 1: gas or hydro, 2: nuclear or coal, 3: sun or tidal, 4: wind. You can also think of demand types that require each of these levels or better. Of course each of these categories contains its own sliding scale of how far in advance you have to decide or can predict. Wind is not completely unpredictable, but it is further down this hierarchy than almost any other source of generation. Moving generation up this hierarchy, or demand down it, is always going to give some benefit. Well designed power markets should make sure that there is some fair incentive for any such step.

entropicgravity 4y ago

HVDC is now a thing. Collecting solar in Northern Austrialia and sending it to Singapore over a 3800km long transmission line. Under construction now.

bamboozled 4y ago
The project has stalled due to the two billionaires funding the project having a “spat”.
Scoundreller 4y ago
Thank you. People laughed when I suggested an HVDC link between North America and Europe. Nordstream 1 was 1222km, and Britpipe now, is 60km shorter. Boston to Lisbon is 5100km. Churchill Falls (home of a giant hydro dam project in Labrador Canada which got screwed by Hydro-Quebec because the only via transit was through Quebec), would be just under 4000km subsea. The transit contract expires in 2039 I believe...
- mschuster91 4y ago
  The current HVDC record is China, they run an almost 3300km line [1], but it's capable of only 12 GW transmission power. It really doesn't make much sense to connect Europe and North America. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity...
- gregoriol 4y ago
  It wouldn't make much sense: eastern US/Canada and western Europe have about the same profile (same kind of wind/hydro/solar/... sources); it would make more sense to connect regions with different profiles, like the Scotland/England example of the article (high-wind/low-population to a high-population zone) or high-sunlight to a low-sunlight (like southern europe/northern africa to northern europe)
fmajid 4y ago
There's this incredible project to build a 10GW solar farm in Morocco (1/3 of UK peak consumption) and bring the power to the UK via HVDC cable. Amazingly they estimate only 10% losses despite being over 3800km long: https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ Surely HVDC links between Scotland and England could be built? And then there are pumped hydropower storage project like this one with a proposed storage capacity of 200 GWh and 1.5GW of power: https://www.coireglas.com https://www.coireglas.com In the worst case, couldn't the excess power simply be used in electrolyzers to generate hydrogen? They may not be very efficient but it's better than throwing free energy away.

seb1204 4y ago

The statement that we need all of them is not correct. Grid forming inverters and large battery storage will replace gas peak plants in the future. First to go are however the old coal and nuclear plants as they become unprofitable.

presentation 4y ago

How about redirecting excess nuclear energy to eg produce hydrogen fuel cells?

Leherenn 4y ago
Usually the problem with this kind of thing, is that the initial capex requirements are high, and it's just not profitable given how rarely it happens.

raverbashing 4y ago

Several power companies are using synchronous condensers with flywheels to increase inertia