July 2018 was a very poor month for wind power. It fell 3.4 TWh below the average monthly figure for the year of 4.5 TWh
The UK’s 20,000 MW installed
capacity of onshore and offshore wind turbines operated at just 7% capacity
factor to generate 1.1 TWh of electricity in July 2018.
Had they operated at the 30.25% average capacity factor for the year
of, 4.5 TWh would have been generated.
That’s a shortfall of 3.4 TWh.
That’s a shortfall of 3.4 TWh.
------------------------------//------------------------------
"...Tesla’s Powerpacks are lithium-ion batteries, similar
to a laptop or a mobile phone battery........In a Tesla Powerpack, the base
unit is the size of a large thick tray. Around sixteen of these are inserted
into a fridge-sized cabinet to make a single Tesla “Powerpack” ........With 210
kilowatt-hour per Tesla Powerpack, the full South Australian installation is
estimated to be made up of several hundred units..."
"...A control system will also be needed to dictate the battery’s charging and discharging. This is both for the longevity of battery as well to maximise its economic benefit........For example, the deeper the regular discharge, the shorter the lifetime of the battery, which has a warranty period of 15 years..."
26,356 of these, with a capital cost
of: £1,318 billion can
rectify one month of UK low wind power generation, for a lifespan of
15 years.
But for 60 years [The design life of a
Nuclear Power Plant] Power Reserve Plants would have to be built 4X. The capital cost, to
rectify 1 month of low-wind would be:
4 x £1,318 billion = £5,272 billion.
------------------------------//------------------------------
To store 3.4 TWh of energy, for delivery over 31 days, would
require 97,143 Energy Vault Plants, with a lifespan of 30 years. At
US$7.5 million [£5.85 million], they would have a capital cost of: £568 billion.
But for the
60 years [The design life of a Nuclear Power Plant] Energy Vault Plants would
have to be built 2X. The capital cost, to rectify 1 month of low-wind
would be:
2 x £568
billion = £1,136 billion.
------------------------------//------------------------------
To store 3.4 TWh of energy, for delivery over 31 days, would require 13,600 CRYOBattery Plants, with a lifespan of 30 to 40 years and a capital cost of:
£150 billion.
But for the 60 years design life of a
Nuclear Power Plant [80 years with economical life extension], CRYOBattery
Plants would have to be built 2X.
The capital cost, to rectify 1 month
of low-wind would be:
2 x £150 billion = £300 billion.
------------------------------//------------------------------
The 13.5 GW of onshore wind, with a capital cost of £15 billion (£36 billion for 60 years) and the 8.5 GW of offshore wind, with a capital cost of £21 billion (£50.4 billion for 60 years), can now be backed up by storage to provide 24/7 electricity, for an additional capital cost of £150 billion (£300 billion for 60 years).
That's a total capital cost of just £386.4 billion for renewables + storage to supply 65.5 TWh per year of 24/7 electricity (about 20% of the UK's annual demand), for a 60 years period.
There is a consideration though, that £386.4 billion would finance the capital cost of 734 of GE Hitachi's BWRX-300 nuclear power plants, which would generate 1,736 TWh every year (5.6X the UK's annual demand), for a lifespan of 60 years.
Renewables + storage will require 26.5X the capital investment to generate the same amount of 24/7, low-carbon electricity as advanced nuclear power plants. It would appear 24/7 electricity from renewables + storage still has a way to go.
1 comment:
Hi Colin and thank you for your reply in comments about the Herald story "Scotland leads the charge towards a new Ion Age".
I recognised your name - I think from your comments on Euan Mearns' "Energy Matters" blog - and have just done an internet search and so I welcome a discussion with someone with your experience. Thank you for your service and may I say how pleased I am to respond to your question.
In designing a 100% renewable energy system, based on wind power and energy storage, one would not attempt what you suggest in the manner you suggest.
The appropriate systems design can most easily be achieved by using my on-line design tool.
Search for
"Wind, solar, storage and back-up system designer"
which should find a post of that title on my scottishscientist wordpress blog and there is the link to the tool of that title on my scottish scienceontheweb website.
I'm happy to provide you with clickable links, here in a comment on your blog.
To consider the example you consider on your BWRX blog
20,000 MW - 20 GW - of nameplate capacity wind power @ 30% capacity factor.
This would generate an average of 144 GWh per day and the grid energy storage capacity to match that would only have to be of that order.
This match would allow systems to offer to supply between 3.5GW to 25GW peak demand, depending on how much dispatchable back-up power (from say renewable energy biomass or conventional hydroelectric power) was available.
3.5 GW peak demand doesn't require any dispatchable back up power.
25 GW peak demand would require 14 GW dispatchable backup power.
To understand the modelling basis of my designer tool, you would need to read my other blog post
"Modelling of wind and pumped-storage power"
However, to answer your question directly - if the UK needs 3.4 TWh of grid energy storage then we could build that at Strathdearn, south of Inverness - a site that could offer up to 6.8TWh of energy storage.
For full details see my other blog post
"World's biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro-scheme, for Scotland?"
Post a Comment