Smart grids are a bit of a buzzword at the moment - and a bit scary.
The idea is that you use your electricity meter to tell you how much electricity you are using, and what the price is.
Sounds good - but mine is in the cupboard outside and I never go near it. I suppose that some people will though, which does make it worthwhile.
The second idea is that you can sell electricity back to the grid.
Well, that's a bit scary.
I'm not an electrical engineer but I know a few people who are worried by this. Remember that electrical production and consumption have to be ballanced - if they are not the grid speeds up or slows down from 50Hz, and damages electrical equipment.
It's going to be difficult with wind, wave and tidal - difficult, but manageable. Now put a wind turbine on every house in britain, and change the windspeed - what's electrical production going to do - how can you ballance that?
Yes, hypothetical, but valid - there needs to be a limit on how much electricity can be supplied to the grid, and a simple statement of "the grid must buy from anyone" is going to cause problems.
...so nice try Cameron, but no.
Showing posts with label grid connections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grid connections. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, November 27, 2008
10 energy "myths"
I think that the author of this guardian article understands what he is talking about - certainly bits of his article make sense!
"Finding a way to roll out CO2 capture is the single most important research challenge the world faces today. The current leader, the Swedish power company Vattenfall, is using an innovative technology that burns the coal in pure oxygen rather than air, producing pure carbon dioxide from its chimneys, rather than expensively separating the CO2 from other exhaust gases. It hopes to be operating huge coal-fired power stations with minimal CO2 emissions by 2020".
(Just remember that here in the UK we're really not that far behind - we've almost started to opporate a similar, larger, rig (see slide 19 - Phase II involves a rig which is larger than Vanttenfall's).
I'm not sure that I agree with him, when he describes how "the most efficient power stations are big" - he's making a sweeping generalisation. Yes, fuel cells are remakably efficient, and yes if embedded into a house you will be able to use the waste heat from them.
What happens if you can't use all the heat though - your efficiency drops.
Equally he doesn't mention the cost of these systems, rather argueing for a blank cheque from government. They are expensive, and they run on an expensive fuel (natural gas).
Equally his proposal for wind & solar power (huge electrical grids) will help and will reduce the problems associated with grid intermittancy. I can only dream up a number (in the hundreds of billions probably - especially for sub-sea power cables) for the cost of the system.
Equally it will mean integrating the UK's market into the european grid - and I'm not sure how easy that will be to do. I'm sure it's possible though (probably also another night-time market for all that cheap french nuclear power!).
Having said that, the more I read the article, the better I like it. It actually looks quite well researched - and my above problem is probably only there because the article has been edited for size.
"Finding a way to roll out CO2 capture is the single most important research challenge the world faces today. The current leader, the Swedish power company Vattenfall, is using an innovative technology that burns the coal in pure oxygen rather than air, producing pure carbon dioxide from its chimneys, rather than expensively separating the CO2 from other exhaust gases. It hopes to be operating huge coal-fired power stations with minimal CO2 emissions by 2020".
(Just remember that here in the UK we're really not that far behind - we've almost started to opporate a similar, larger, rig (see slide 19 - Phase II involves a rig which is larger than Vanttenfall's).
I'm not sure that I agree with him, when he describes how "the most efficient power stations are big" - he's making a sweeping generalisation. Yes, fuel cells are remakably efficient, and yes if embedded into a house you will be able to use the waste heat from them.
What happens if you can't use all the heat though - your efficiency drops.
Equally he doesn't mention the cost of these systems, rather argueing for a blank cheque from government. They are expensive, and they run on an expensive fuel (natural gas).
Equally his proposal for wind & solar power (huge electrical grids) will help and will reduce the problems associated with grid intermittancy. I can only dream up a number (in the hundreds of billions probably - especially for sub-sea power cables) for the cost of the system.
Equally it will mean integrating the UK's market into the european grid - and I'm not sure how easy that will be to do. I'm sure it's possible though (probably also another night-time market for all that cheap french nuclear power!).
Having said that, the more I read the article, the better I like it. It actually looks quite well researched - and my above problem is probably only there because the article has been edited for size.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Grid connections
You can't generate electricity unless you can plug your powerstation into the same bit of wire as your customers - that way they can absorb the energy that you're pumping out and your power station won't break.
The problem is that, in this country, there have been quotes of a 10 year lag in requesting, and being served by, a grid connection.
The trouble is that, by their nature, most renewable energy sources are miles away from the nearest bit of the grid that can carry the vast amount of power they are generating. This is particularly the case in scotland, where the energy has to be shipped down to london.
Additionally the grid has to be routed through areas of outstanding natural beauty, which requires planning permission (etc. etc. etc.).
As such getting grid connections to renewables can be very time consuming and very expensive.
Coupled with the looming energy gap it therefore makes sense not to always give priority to renewables for their grid connection - something that the EU would like to see. Conventional (coal and gas) power stations tend to be closer to the consumers, and traditionally stronger sections of the grid (where their power can easily be absoped and fed to consumers).
The government is doing the right thing - whilst there is much essential work to be done to connect in the renewables we don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket.
The problem is that, in this country, there have been quotes of a 10 year lag in requesting, and being served by, a grid connection.
The trouble is that, by their nature, most renewable energy sources are miles away from the nearest bit of the grid that can carry the vast amount of power they are generating. This is particularly the case in scotland, where the energy has to be shipped down to london.
Additionally the grid has to be routed through areas of outstanding natural beauty, which requires planning permission (etc. etc. etc.).
As such getting grid connections to renewables can be very time consuming and very expensive.
Coupled with the looming energy gap it therefore makes sense not to always give priority to renewables for their grid connection - something that the EU would like to see. Conventional (coal and gas) power stations tend to be closer to the consumers, and traditionally stronger sections of the grid (where their power can easily be absoped and fed to consumers).
The government is doing the right thing - whilst there is much essential work to be done to connect in the renewables we don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)