Just because I am right there is no need to sulk.
The calculations are O level mechanics. Do them yourself, and stop relying on pretty web sites to form your opinions.
Try doing some sums and forming your own.
Hint: Google hoover dam and lake mead. There are figures there in wiki for how much energy is stored in the county sized lake. Not enough for more than a couple of weeks of the UK in winter.
Yes
There never was any concept of backup. You don't duplicate routes, ever. You design for predicted demand and for the planned generation. If that can't be accommodated on the existing network a new route is built. In the past that process was less refined than it is now and NIMBY's were few and far between hence you sometimes had lines and cables operating at relatively low capacity.
Generation can often be constrained off by system configuration and that has been the case for many years in certain locations. Some operators choose such an arrangement as they can get very low cost connections if they are prepared to accept the possibility of being unable to generate 100% of the time they wish to.
One key driver is that if 'new' (as in post 1990) generation requires infrastructure then the operator of that generation pays for all of the system asset / upgrade costs, hence why the vast majority of 'new' generation is either near the demand, or on existing sites that are being decommissioned, or is at locations where the operator of that new generation predicted correctly / guessed lucky in their being spare capacity on the existing infrastructure.
For instance new generation by operator A B and C in a particular geographic region area amounted to say 2000MW and the cost of connection across a period of a few years for all three operators was essentially nothing. Operator D then came along two years later with
500MW of planned generation as they had access to cheap gas and a suitable pipeline route and a contract for waste heat into a nearby industrial process. But that additional generation busted some grid system limits in that area. So that new operator had to pay for all the infrastructure that enabled them to generate on an as required basis. As a consequence that infrastructure as a side effect removed constraints elsewhere. On the day operator D connected an application for connection was made by operator E that enabled them to connect another 500MW at near zero cost.Lack of investment post 1990 hasn't been an issue as if demand increases and lines and other infrastructure is needed then they are built, but planning issues can sometimes seriously delay bringing them into service.
Also improvements in conductor construction means more capacity on existing line routes when they are restrung. More accurate modeling of thermal properties of overhead lines, underground cables and to a lesser extent transformers means that existing assets can also be operated for longer at their maximum ratings - short term overloads can be tolerated for longer in colder weather, higher loadings can be tolerated for longer in hot weather.
But, while the majority of demand is in the south and the majority of generation is in the north you will always at some stage run into problems, be it from Scotland to England, or Yorkshire to the Midlands, or the Midlands to the South East.
From spinning in air synchronised to the grid to 1320MW generation is around 12 seconds (with 1800MW being achieved another 6 seconds later) Going from full pumping to full generation and vice versa takes significantly longer, in the order of about 8 minutes.
There is no need for fast response for pumping as governor action across the rest of the generators on the system would take care of any similar increase in generation by reducing their output - at the moment you wouldn't see 1320MW increase in wind generation in a matter of minutes and hopefully that day will never arrive.
That is not true in the case of trunk routes. There is considerable argument going on at the moment because the Scottish windpower companies want NG to upgrade the trunk lines south on the basis that their (winpower cos) responsibility ends at the connection TO the grid.
Another reason why intermittent renewables place costs elsewhere. They completely disconnect supply/demand, and they need a lot more interconnection to carry peak versus mean generation capacity.
>
It will if the governments stated policy is implemented.
However that is actually near the sort f level of spinning reserve anyway IIRC - enough to cope with sudden loss of a power station.
It might make a good sound bite, but really one can't expect any part of the generation capacity and grid to be fully functional 100% of the time. Really its a normal part of electricity generation.
NT
And will be far more common as more 'renewable' energy that isn't, is banged on there.
The point is that they were paid 20 times more to stop generating than they would have been for the electricity had they been generating.
that's a contract screwup, nothing to do with the fact that they were wind generators.
NT
Wouldn't happen on a still day would it?
In message , Tabby writes
You don't expect them to press the 'OFF' button for nothing, do you? That's a highly specialized job. The few who have the necessary skills to do it command banker-like salaries. If you don't pay them what they ask, they'll be off abroad to work on wind-farms where their true value to a nation's economy is more widely recognised.
depends on the contract
NT
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.