I keep hearing claims, most recently from the British Government, about how nuclear power can be used flexibly to help balance fluctuating wind and solar.
David another thought provoking article. I guess the core of the problem that needs to be addressed, in the UK at least, is however much renewables we build it will never be sufficient at our latitude to cover against wind droughts in mid winter. That situation necessitates c2-3TWh of storage and thats in todays world where gas still drives most space heating. Between PSH & BESS we can muster about 40GWh currently although granted BESS build out is on a steep trajectory currently but DENZ are constraining it in the connections reform to around 300-400GWh so the rest as to come from elsewhere. This is where a 35GW gas standby system is being guided and where SMRs could be an alternative. However, given the way we approach risk and hazard management in the UK now its never going to be competitive on pricing and its going to take decades to realise. That in itself is unbelievable when you consider Calder Hall went from concept to power output in well under a decade without the help (or are they a handicap) of todays computing power.
The other problem yet to be confronted is a NZ energy system isn't going to cost competitive against gas or coal anytime soon in the UK. Yes gas is vulnerable to price shocks as we saw in 2022 but its rebalanced itself extremely rapidly as it has always done. Also its cost is being inflated by carbon taxing which still doesn't allow renewables to be competitive writ the large the upper price limit for AR7.
Then the other issue we have in the UK is the utterly cack handed way we have gone about trying to decarbonise electricity supply. The utter failure to expand the grid commensurate with the build out of both onshore and offshore wind particularly in Scotland is inexcusable. This is largely down to OFGEM frustrating the TO's requests to expand grid capability in advance of this construction for nearly a decade and leaves us in the situation of paying windfarms to switch off and CCGTs to come to the rescue. This of course give easy headlines to discredit wind.
Ive always declared im agnostic about CC but once it was decide it was a problem that had to be solved they've not gone about doing so in a coherent way. The previous government saw it as an opportunity to create money for their friends through ROCs until found out then came up with CfDs which at least have a known cost. NESO have been applying sticking plasters to keep the lights on which also add costs. Milband should have stood back and taken the time to come up with a joined up Transmission & Generation plan which his predecessors tasked the BEA and the CEGB to do back in the 50/60's which gave us good reliable and lowish cost electricity for decades but instead is just doubling down in creating an ever more complicated system.
"This is where a 35GW gas standby system is being guided and where SMRs could be an alternative."
I'm afraid you have fallen for the "SMR as backup" fairytale.
Nuclear (of any type) wants to run at full power 24x335 for economic and ramping limitation reasons.
It is plausible to have N GW of gas generation sitting around turned off most of the year, and turned on just during the still, dark winter weeks.
Something (like nuclear) that is already running at full power isn't a candidate to be turned on when solar and wind aren't producing.
Also, 35 GW / 470 MW = 74 SMRs. That's a big number to build, and an even bigger ask to build just for the occasional backup - given that the current plan is to build just 3 of them!
Arghh yes wasn't my intention to suggest SMRs were a substitute for standby power as thats clearly unviable but alleged advantage of SMRs is their ability to flex their power output. So a combination of renewables and SMRs could make a contribution that using them for for a much greater contribution to energy utilised with a reduction in renewables. However, as I say the UK ability to get these off the ground in any sensible timeline wont happen and they will thus cost too much.
Quite right that gas is a much better 'partner' technology for variable renewables than nuclear. But isnt part of the argument that we are having to make very long term decisions between various expensive options (since providing security of electricity supply with a largely fossil free renewables dominated network in UK conditions is untried and almost certainly very expensive) we need to back various horses at the moment, and that some level of base load nuclear is helpful. Of course, that is completely dependent on getting nuclear costs down from Hinkley and Sizewell levels. Political factors are important here too. From an environmental and a UK energy perspective, the more we can build on technologies that have cross party support, the better we will do given the very long term investment and delivery profiles. So one thing going in favour of nuclear is that at least both Miliband and Farage support it!
David another thought provoking article. I guess the core of the problem that needs to be addressed, in the UK at least, is however much renewables we build it will never be sufficient at our latitude to cover against wind droughts in mid winter. That situation necessitates c2-3TWh of storage and thats in todays world where gas still drives most space heating. Between PSH & BESS we can muster about 40GWh currently although granted BESS build out is on a steep trajectory currently but DENZ are constraining it in the connections reform to around 300-400GWh so the rest as to come from elsewhere. This is where a 35GW gas standby system is being guided and where SMRs could be an alternative. However, given the way we approach risk and hazard management in the UK now its never going to be competitive on pricing and its going to take decades to realise. That in itself is unbelievable when you consider Calder Hall went from concept to power output in well under a decade without the help (or are they a handicap) of todays computing power.
The other problem yet to be confronted is a NZ energy system isn't going to cost competitive against gas or coal anytime soon in the UK. Yes gas is vulnerable to price shocks as we saw in 2022 but its rebalanced itself extremely rapidly as it has always done. Also its cost is being inflated by carbon taxing which still doesn't allow renewables to be competitive writ the large the upper price limit for AR7.
Then the other issue we have in the UK is the utterly cack handed way we have gone about trying to decarbonise electricity supply. The utter failure to expand the grid commensurate with the build out of both onshore and offshore wind particularly in Scotland is inexcusable. This is largely down to OFGEM frustrating the TO's requests to expand grid capability in advance of this construction for nearly a decade and leaves us in the situation of paying windfarms to switch off and CCGTs to come to the rescue. This of course give easy headlines to discredit wind.
Ive always declared im agnostic about CC but once it was decide it was a problem that had to be solved they've not gone about doing so in a coherent way. The previous government saw it as an opportunity to create money for their friends through ROCs until found out then came up with CfDs which at least have a known cost. NESO have been applying sticking plasters to keep the lights on which also add costs. Milband should have stood back and taken the time to come up with a joined up Transmission & Generation plan which his predecessors tasked the BEA and the CEGB to do back in the 50/60's which gave us good reliable and lowish cost electricity for decades but instead is just doubling down in creating an ever more complicated system.
"This is where a 35GW gas standby system is being guided and where SMRs could be an alternative."
I'm afraid you have fallen for the "SMR as backup" fairytale.
Nuclear (of any type) wants to run at full power 24x335 for economic and ramping limitation reasons.
It is plausible to have N GW of gas generation sitting around turned off most of the year, and turned on just during the still, dark winter weeks.
Something (like nuclear) that is already running at full power isn't a candidate to be turned on when solar and wind aren't producing.
Also, 35 GW / 470 MW = 74 SMRs. That's a big number to build, and an even bigger ask to build just for the occasional backup - given that the current plan is to build just 3 of them!
Arghh yes wasn't my intention to suggest SMRs were a substitute for standby power as thats clearly unviable but alleged advantage of SMRs is their ability to flex their power output. So a combination of renewables and SMRs could make a contribution that using them for for a much greater contribution to energy utilised with a reduction in renewables. However, as I say the UK ability to get these off the ground in any sensible timeline wont happen and they will thus cost too much.
Quite right that gas is a much better 'partner' technology for variable renewables than nuclear. But isnt part of the argument that we are having to make very long term decisions between various expensive options (since providing security of electricity supply with a largely fossil free renewables dominated network in UK conditions is untried and almost certainly very expensive) we need to back various horses at the moment, and that some level of base load nuclear is helpful. Of course, that is completely dependent on getting nuclear costs down from Hinkley and Sizewell levels. Political factors are important here too. From an environmental and a UK energy perspective, the more we can build on technologies that have cross party support, the better we will do given the very long term investment and delivery profiles. So one thing going in favour of nuclear is that at least both Miliband and Farage support it!
Fossil fuels aren’t viable during oil and gas price spikes, which is why they are unreliable as well as polluting