UK net zero electricity by 2030- easy to say before an election.

[GregLocock]

Miliband (UK Energy vandal) is proposing to use flywheels for energy storage to handle fluctuations in grid demand. Mechanical engineering isn't dead! State of the art systems use carbon fibre flywheels running in a vacuum, they max out at about 20 MW instantaneous, which they can supply for maybe 45 seconds.

As energy storage this is clearly nutso, but for frequency stabilisation it has a bit going for it. Incidentally South Australia's 100 MW 100 MWh battery (since expanded) makes most of its money not keeping the lights on, but by providing frequency stabilisation.

here's the western world's poster boy for flywheels

https://www.sandia.gov/ess-ssl/docs/pr_conferences/2010/arseneaux.pdf

and here's what happened

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/beacon-powers-bankruptcy-autopsy

But the facility still operates, and presumably makes a profit.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLocock]

Here is the official report from NESO on how to achieve 100% 'clean' power for the UK by 2030. https://www.neso.energy/document/346651/download

It is not a plan it is a wish list, relying on hydrogen and carbon capture, neither of which exist operating successfully at a useful scale anywhere in the world, and offshore wind, and ta ran ta ra, they'll still have 5% of energy over the year from conventional natural gas. "most of today’s gas plants remain on the system out to 2030 and beyond. Appropriate arrangements will need to be in place to ensure these plants remain open" So you'll be keeping them maintained and so on but not using them.

 

[GregLocock]

Oh, and it also has two of my favorite unproven technologies, compressed air storage, which has a farcically low loop efficiency, and new kid on the block, liquid air energy storage (LAES), which has a loop efficiency of 25% but if you do bad thermodynamics that can be boosted to a claimed 50%.

 

[GregLocock]

And today Starmer has announced that Net Zero for the UK is no longer a firm commitment.

"The Prime Minister announced a new Plan for Change, including promises to target 18-week NHS waits, get more five-year-olds ready for school and build 1.5 million homes. The six “milestones” sit below the five “missions” announced before the election:Becoming the fastest growing economy in the G7 – now an “aim” – and securing 100% clean energy by 2030 have both been dropped."

That's from the Torygraph but I assume it is true. This was of course bleeding inevitable for al the reasons listed in this thread. Problems it raises - sovereign risk - Australia is in the same boat, foreign investors are now gun-shy of Australia due to our continual (and future) backflips. Also what's plan B? More gas? More nukes?

More useful is this rather more sympathetic version from the Beeb (surprise)

The prime minister said being “on track” for 95% clean power by 2030 was one of his milestones.

But before and during the election, Labour constantly spoke about “zero carbon electricity by 2030” - and this was what the party's manifesto promised.

Sir Keir denied he was rowing back on 100% zero carbon, telling reporters that the "clean energy pledge is today exactly what it was in the election" and "there was always going to be a mix [of energy sources]".

Is he right?

The 95% clean power figure follows advice from the National Energy Systems Operator (NESO), which recently said a clean power system is one where demand is met by “mainly renewables, with gas-fired generation used rarely to ensure security of supply”.

It says gas should “provide less than 5% of Great Britain’s generation in a typical weather year”.

Two years ago Sir Keir also acknowledged that fossil fuels may be needed as a “fall back”.

So while the 95% clean power does seem consistent with official advice and concessions in the past, it is the first time that figure has been used by the prime minister.