Tidal Lagoon - Energy from the Ocean, UK Gov is putting money in it

[Someone]

and is economically profitable when it is operated in the current markets so it is not an external cost that needs to be added renewables, it could be counted as a profit against any generation type other than the fast gas turbine plants (with which it currently competes).

You will have to point to a justification for that, which must include accounting for the increased cost of operating conventional plants since it will require them to be operated in a less economic manner. "Somebody" has to pay for conventional plants reduced efficiency, and that should be whoever" is causing the inefficiency. After all, if renewables are so efficient, their reduced cost should be more than capable of offsetting the inefficiency.

There are good reasons for using renewable sources, but making disingenuous (at best) claims about costs and profitability makes people doubt the claimed advantages.

If all you do is operate the pumped storage plant it is very profitable with the current wholesale electricity market volatility, the profitability of other generators on the network can be ignored. Further, adding pumped storage will only stabilise fluctuations in demand for conventional plants so in co-operation they could be run more efficiently.

Here is a rather neutral reference on the matter for Australia:
http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/opportunities-pumped-hydro-energy-storage-australia

All the numbers I have looked at say that there is sufficient space/geography available in the UK and Australia to install pumped hydro storage capacity to enable 100% renewable generation for each nation respectively.

Really? Where in the UK? (I make no comment about Australia)

What does your unnamed source know that David MacKay doesn't? See http://www.withouthotair.com which is lauded by everybody with any axe to grind.

You can point to that reference all you like, it devotes substantial length to the matter and supports the realistic view that the UK has sufficient space and geography to store enough energy to cope with lulls in a largely or 100% renewable generation scenario. It trivially finds enough storage capacity in a small number of existing unutilised water bodies to store 2 hours of operational time in addition to the current estimated 30 minutes of hold up time. This is without considering the capability to build new storage capacity, increase the capacity of existing locations, tidal lagoons, etc.

The problem the UK faces with going 100% renewable is that the generating energy density per unit area of renewables isn't compatible with the limited land area.

There are other problems.

There probably are, but storage is a solved problem that through pumped water can fit within economic and social constraints.

[Someone]

The problem the UK faces with going 100% renewable is that the generating energy density per unit area of renewables isn't compatible with the limited land area.

The continental shelf gives the UK and Ireland considerable concentrated tidal power. Only one place in the world has more. As the first land the Atlantic winds hit, the UK and Ireland receive considerably more wind than anywhere on the mainland. By the same mechanisms the UK and Ireland also get lots of wave power against their shores. They are certainly certainly weak on solar, as much from endless cloud cover as from their northern location, but compared to most of the world they are quite renewables rich. If they can't support themselves renewably, what hope is there for most of the planet?

Reduced population density is one answer!

[tggzzz]

All the numbers I have looked at say that there is sufficient space/geography available in the UK and Australia to install pumped hydro storage capacity to enable 100% renewable generation for each nation respectively.

Really? Where in the UK? (I make no comment about Australia)

What does your unnamed source know that David MacKay doesn't? See http://www.withouthotair.com which is lauded by everybody with any axe to grind.

You can point to that reference all you like, it devotes substantial length to the matter and supports the realistic view that the UK has sufficient space and geography to store enough energy to cope with lulls in a largely or 100% renewable generation scenario. It trivially finds enough storage capacity in a small number of existing unutilised water bodies to store 2 hours of operational time in addition to the current estimated 30 minutes of hold up time. This is without considering the capability to build new storage capacity, increase the capacity of existing locations, tidal lagoons, etc.

Nonsense. In each of his 5 plans for the future (see p203 onwards) he keeps pumped hydro at the same level as today - for the good reason that most of the good spaces in the UK are already fully utilised.

As for the capacity, the combined capacity is 30GWh, sufficient for significantly less than 1 hours UK electricity consumption. Given the intermittancy of wind and water power in the UK, that is completely and utterly inadequate.

As for referring to Mackay as a good source - of course I do. Everybody, from Greenpeace to Big Energy, regards his work as an excellent starting point for discussions.

If someone makes claims that are extraordinary compared to that starting point, then that someone has to provide extraordinary proof. So far nobody has been able to provide sufficient proof that stands up to examination. If you can provide extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claims, then everybody will listen.

[tggzzz]

.... but storage is a solved problem that through pumped water can fit within economic and social constraints.

Not in the UK it can't. That's an extraordinary claim you are making, so I (and many many others in the UK) will be interested in seeing whether you extraordinary proof stands up to scrutiny. I'm not holding my breath.

[Someone]

All the numbers I have looked at say that there is sufficient space/geography available in the UK and Australia to install pumped hydro storage capacity to enable 100% renewable generation for each nation respectively.

Really? Where in the UK? (I make no comment about Australia)

What does your unnamed source know that David MacKay doesn't? See http://www.withouthotair.com which is lauded by everybody with any axe to grind.

You can point to that reference all you like, it devotes substantial length to the matter and supports the realistic view that the UK has sufficient space and geography to store enough energy to cope with lulls in a largely or 100% renewable generation scenario. It trivially finds enough storage capacity in a small number of existing unutilised water bodies to store 2 hours of operational time in addition to the current estimated 30 minutes of hold up time. This is without considering the capability to build new storage capacity, increase the capacity of existing locations, tidal lagoons, etc.

Nonsense. In each of his 5 plans for the future (see p203 onwards) he keeps pumped hydro at the same level as today - for the good reason that most of the good spaces in the UK are already fully utilised.

As for the capacity, the combined capacity is 30GWh, sufficient for significantly less than 1 hours UK electricity consumption. Given the intermittancy of wind and water power in the UK, that is completely and utterly inadequate.

As for referring to Mackay as a good source - of course I do. Everybody, from Greenpeace to Big Energy, regards his work as an excellent starting point for discussions.

If someone makes claims that are extraordinary compared to that starting point, then that someone has to provide extraordinary proof. So far nobody has been able to provide sufficient proof that stands up to examination. If you can provide extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claims, then everybody will listen.

The current UK capacity is less than 30GWh (rounded up in that reference) which is enough energy for around 30 minutes of hold up power as i said, the same document goes on to make a quick estimate that 400GWh of capacity can be found from just a small number of existing water bodies. Plan "G" from the document suggests 4000GWh or more storage and is not flagged in any way as challenging to achieve. That 4000GWh is enough energy for grid hold up of roughly 2-3 days, additional hold up can be achieved by demand management and storage by the consumer as discussed elsewhere in the same document.

You are so wrong time and time again, but we await your next distraction. I'm not going to hold you to any ridiculous levels of proof but right now it would take a pretty committed geospatial analysis to prove that there isn't enough storage capacity available in the UK when so little of the well studied and proven resources are currently used.

Just for reference a large version of the Severn Barrage could store 20GWh or more over the short term, pumped hydro up hills is far more effective use of surface area.

[Someone]

.... but storage is a solved problem that through pumped water can fit within economic and social constraints.

Not in the UK it can't. That's an extraordinary claim you are making, so I (and many many others in the UK) will be interested in seeing whether you extraordinary proof stands up to scrutiny. I'm not holding my breath.

Wholesale electricity pricing over the daily cycle for the UK is seemingly tricky to get much data on but again Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air provides some data showing daily fluctuations of 4-5x in price and I have seen slightly less optimistic data sets that show reliable 3x daily variations in the market.

Huge arbitrage potential

The economics of pumped storage are well developed, starting with the University of Melbourne example I posted earlier. There is no extraordinary claim from any aspect. Humorously pumped storage is most profitable while there is only a limited amount of it and as larger reserve capacities are built the profit will actually drop, but that assumes the generating characteristics are as they are today and adding more intermittent generators into the grid such as solar or wind offsets that.

[coppice]

Nonsense. In each of his 5 plans for the future (see p203 onwards) he keeps pumped hydro at the same level as today - for the good reason that most of the good spaces in the UK are already fully utilised.

As for the capacity, the combined capacity is 30GWh, sufficient for significantly less than 1 hours UK electricity consumption. Given the intermittancy of wind and water power in the UK, that is completely and utterly inadequate.

As for referring to Mackay as a good source - of course I do. Everybody, from Greenpeace to Big Energy, regards his work as an excellent starting point for discussions.

If someone makes claims that are extraordinary compared to that starting point, then that someone has to provide extraordinary proof. So far nobody has been able to provide sufficient proof that stands up to examination. If you can provide extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claims, then everybody will listen.

The current UK capacity is less than 30GWh (rounded up in that reference) which is enough energy for around 30 minutes of hold up power as i said, the same document goes on to make a quick estimate that 400GWh of capacity can be found from just a small number of existing water bodies. Plan "G" from the document suggests 4000GWh or more storage and is not flagged in any way as challenging to achieve. That 4000GWh is enough energy for grid hold up of roughly 2-3 days, additional hold up can be achieved by demand management and storage by the consumer as discussed elsewhere in the same document.

You are so wrong time and time again, but we await your next distraction. I'm not going to hold you to any ridiculous levels of proof but right now it would take a pretty committed geospatial analysis to prove that there isn't enough storage capacity available in the UK when so little of the well studied and proven resources are currently used.

Just for reference a large version of the Severn Barrage could store 20GWh or more over the short term, pumped hydro up hills is far more effective use of surface area.

In the early part of Without The Hot Air the author shows scenarios that would require 1200GWh of storage to ride over the lulls in generation. He then shows what it would take to achieve 400GWh of storage, which is a substantial change to Scotland, and then says:

By building more pumped storage systems, it looks as if we could increase our maximum energy store from 30 GWh to 100 GWh or perhaps 400 GWh. Achieving the full 1200 GWh that we were hoping for looks tough, however.

In plan G he says the plan would need 4000GWh of storage, which would take 100 lakes. Having already established that getting to 1200GWh would be tough he goes no further. Remember than 4000GWh from 100 lakes is an average of 40GWh per lake, and that Britain's current flagship pumped storage scheme at Dinorwig only stores 9GWh.

[coppice]

.... but storage is a solved problem that through pumped water can fit within economic and social constraints.

Not in the UK it can't. That's an extraordinary claim you are making, so I (and many many others in the UK) will be interested in seeing whether you extraordinary proof stands up to scrutiny. I'm not holding my breath.

Wholesale electricity pricing over the daily cycle for the UK is seemingly tricky to get much data on but again Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air provides some data showing daily fluctuations of 4-5x in price and I have seen slightly less optimistic data sets that show reliable 3x daily variations in the market.

Huge arbitrage potential

The economics of pumped storage are well developed, starting with the University of Melbourne example I posted earlier. There is no extraordinary claim from any aspect. Humorously pumped storage is most profitable while there is only a limited amount of it and as larger reserve capacities are built the profit will actually drop, but that assumes the generating characteristics are as they are today and adding more intermittent generators into the grid such as solar or wind offsets that.

What relevance does the potential for arbitrage have when the topic was having enough pumped storage to ride over long lulls in generation. Power arbitrage is basically a 24 hour cycle thing.

[Someone]

Nonsense. In each of his 5 plans for the future (see p203 onwards) he keeps pumped hydro at the same level as today - for the good reason that most of the good spaces in the UK are already fully utilised.

As for the capacity, the combined capacity is 30GWh, sufficient for significantly less than 1 hours UK electricity consumption. Given the intermittancy of wind and water power in the UK, that is completely and utterly inadequate.

As for referring to Mackay as a good source - of course I do. Everybody, from Greenpeace to Big Energy, regards his work as an excellent starting point for discussions.

If someone makes claims that are extraordinary compared to that starting point, then that someone has to provide extraordinary proof. So far nobody has been able to provide sufficient proof that stands up to examination. If you can provide extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claims, then everybody will listen.

The current UK capacity is less than 30GWh (rounded up in that reference) which is enough energy for around 30 minutes of hold up power as i said, the same document goes on to make a quick estimate that 400GWh of capacity can be found from just a small number of existing water bodies. Plan "G" from the document suggests 4000GWh or more storage and is not flagged in any way as challenging to achieve. That 4000GWh is enough energy for grid hold up of roughly 2-3 days, additional hold up can be achieved by demand management and storage by the consumer as discussed elsewhere in the same document.

You are so wrong time and time again, but we await your next distraction. I'm not going to hold you to any ridiculous levels of proof but right now it would take a pretty committed geospatial analysis to prove that there isn't enough storage capacity available in the UK when so little of the well studied and proven resources are currently used.

Just for reference a large version of the Severn Barrage could store 20GWh or more over the short term, pumped hydro up hills is far more effective use of surface area.

In the early part of Without The Hot Air the author shows scenarios that would require 1200GWh of storage to ride over the lulls in generation. He then shows what it would take to achieve 400GWh of storage, which is a substantial change to Scotland, and then says:

To me the suggested changes would not be "substantial" to Scotland, using existing water bodies within their existing natural water height variations seems like a very moderate approach. Putting in the huge quantities of storage beyond that would require substantial changes with large dams, flooding, and new reservoirs.

By building more pumped storage systems, it looks as if we could increase our maximum energy store from 30 GWh to 100 GWh or perhaps 400 GWh. Achieving the full 1200 GWh that we were hoping for looks tough, however.

In plan G he says the plan would need 4000GWh of storage, which would take 100 lakes. Having already established that getting to 1200GWh would be tough he goes no further. Remember than 4000GWh from 100 lakes is an average of 40GWh per lake, and that Britain's current flagship pumped storage scheme at Dinorwig only stores 9GWh.

1200GWh would not be tough if energy storage was a priority, open up the constraints and anything is possible. When you go looking for commercially viable sites for pumped storage they come up with surprising frequency as the assessments using geospatial data in Australia have shown. Energy storage capacity has not been a priority in the grid so taking the existing fleet of storage plants is not representative of what is possible, the upper storage of Dinorwig is surprisingly small despite the large dams progressively built to increase its capacity (originally for other purposes).

[Someone]

.... but storage is a solved problem that through pumped water can fit within economic and social constraints.

Not in the UK it can't. That's an extraordinary claim you are making, so I (and many many others in the UK) will be interested in seeing whether you extraordinary proof stands up to scrutiny. I'm not holding my breath.

Wholesale electricity pricing over the daily cycle for the UK is seemingly tricky to get much data on but again Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air provides some data showing daily fluctuations of 4-5x in price and I have seen slightly less optimistic data sets that show reliable 3x daily variations in the market.

Huge arbitrage potential

The economics of pumped storage are well developed, starting with the University of Melbourne example I posted earlier. There is no extraordinary claim from any aspect. Humorously pumped storage is most profitable while there is only a limited amount of it and as larger reserve capacities are built the profit will actually drop, but that assumes the generating characteristics are as they are today and adding more intermittent generators into the grid such as solar or wind offsets that.

What relevance does the potential for arbitrage have when the topic was having enough pumped storage to ride over long lulls in generation. Power arbitrage is basically a 24 hour cycle thing.

I'm addressing the economics of this, pumped storage is profitable, even in the UK. And then as an additional benefit it can also be used for energy storage across any timeline that the operator deems necessary (unlike the tidal examples which require more careful planning for storage/delivery timing). While it might be making money most of the year in the daily arbitrage when longer lulls arrive the capacity can be used to smooth those out too, driven purely by profit motives.

[tggzzz]

In the early part of Without The Hot Air the author shows scenarios that would require 1200GWh of storage to ride over the lulls in generation. He then shows what it would take to achieve 400GWh of storage, which is a substantial change to Scotland, and then says:

By building more pumped storage systems, it looks as if we could increase our maximum energy store from 30 GWh to 100 GWh or perhaps 400 GWh. Achieving the full 1200 GWh that we were hoping for looks tough, however.

In plan G he says the plan would need 4000GWh of storage, which would take 100 lakes. Having already established that getting to 1200GWh would be tough he goes no further. Remember than 4000GWh from 100 lakes is an average of 40GWh per lake, and that Britain's current flagship pumped storage scheme at Dinorwig only stores 9GWh.

Precisely. One should , of course, realise that Mackay is an engineer and mathematician, and he is using the word "tough" in the engineering/mathematicial sense. "Tough" means "theoretically conceivable, but so difficult as to be impractical".

[tggzzz]

Huge arbitrage potential

Once someone introduces arbitrage as an argument, it is clear that they have moved away from the world of physics and engineering and into the world of financiers such as the City of London.

Students the City of London know that there is only a tenuous relationship between the City of London and the real world.

[tggzzz]

When you go looking for commercially viable sites for pumped storage they come up with surprising frequency as the assessments using geospatial data in Australia have shown. Energy storage capacity has not been a priority in the grid so taking the existing fleet of storage plants is not representative of what is possible, the upper storage of Dinorwig is surprisingly small despite the large dams progressively built to increase its capacity (originally for other purposes).

To rephrase that to tease out your train of thought. "It is possible in Australia, so it is possible in the UK. The largest existing scheme in the UK is 'surprisingly small' despite all the efforts to increase its capacity".

Australia is large, empty, and has significant hills/mountains. The UK (even Scotland) is small, densely populated especially near water, and doesn't have many hills.

[coppice]

Huge arbitrage potential

Once someone introduces arbitrage as an argument, it is clear that they have moved away from the world of physics and engineering and into the world of financiers such as the City of London.

Students the City of London know that there is only a tenuous relationship between the City of London and the real world.

That's not really true. Energy arbitrage works well as a proper engineering solution over 24 hour cycles, storing during the quiet times, and releasing to soften the peaks. However, a system designed for profitable arbitrage is no bigger than the peak to trough span of the daily cycles. Its a completely different thing from providing a means to maintain supply through long unpredictable downturns in generated output, which was the topic being discussed. Its a national necessity, but its hard to imagine a system like that ever running at a profit.

[Someone]

When you go looking for commercially viable sites for pumped storage they come up with surprising frequency as the assessments using geospatial data in Australia have shown. Energy storage capacity has not been a priority in the grid so taking the existing fleet of storage plants is not representative of what is possible, the upper storage of Dinorwig is surprisingly small despite the large dams progressively built to increase its capacity (originally for other purposes).

To rephrase that to tease out your train of thought. "It is possible in Australia, so it is possible in the UK. The largest existing scheme in the UK is 'surprisingly small' despite all the efforts to increase its capacity".

You rephrase and completely change the result, it is a small pumped storage installation in both capacity and surface footprint. It was built up over time with successive dams but remains a very small example of pumped storage.

Australia is large, empty, and has significant hills/mountains. The UK (even Scotland) is small, densely populated especially near water, and doesn't have many hills.

The famously high cliffs around the UK coastline are an immediate and very cost effective location for storage, and all the estimates I can come up with show enough capacity to meet the quantities of storage being discussed here. It takes land away from other uses (as you cant store enough with tidal only) but these are the trade-offs required when trying to meet energy independence with renewables.

[Someone]

In the early part of Without The Hot Air the author shows scenarios that would require 1200GWh of storage to ride over the lulls in generation. He then shows what it would take to achieve 400GWh of storage, which is a substantial change to Scotland, and then says:

By building more pumped storage systems, it looks as if we could increase our maximum energy store from 30 GWh to 100 GWh or perhaps 400 GWh. Achieving the full 1200 GWh that we were hoping for looks tough, however.

In plan G he says the plan would need 4000GWh of storage, which would take 100 lakes. Having already established that getting to 1200GWh would be tough he goes no further. Remember than 4000GWh from 100 lakes is an average of 40GWh per lake, and that Britain's current flagship pumped storage scheme at Dinorwig only stores 9GWh.

Precisely. One should , of course, realise that Mackay is an engineer and mathematician, and he is using the word "tough" in the engineering/mathematicial sense. "Tough" means "theoretically conceivable, but so difficult as to be impractical".

When discussing the 5 example energy plans for the UK they are presented as such:

I’ll present a few plans that I believe are technically feasible for the UK by 2050.

Of which plan "G" includes the quoted 4000GWh of storage all attributed to pumped storage. Also you have misappropriated the quote inside those tags to me when they are a direct quote of the books author (taken out of context).

[dannyf]

I just cannot resist:

The famously high cliffs around the UK coastline are an immediate and very cost effective location for storage,

and all the estimates I can come up with show enough capacity to meet the quantities of storage being discussed here.

"Can not compute! can not compute! can not compute!..."

[Someone]

Huge arbitrage potential

Once someone introduces arbitrage as an argument, it is clear that they have moved away from the world of physics and engineering and into the world of financiers such as the City of London.

Students the City of London know that there is only a tenuous relationship between the City of London and the real world.

That's not really true. Energy arbitrage works well as a proper engineering solution over 24 hour cycles, storing during the quiet times, and releasing to soften the peaks. However, a system designed for profitable arbitrage is no bigger than the peak to trough span of the daily cycles. Its a completely different thing from providing a means to maintain supply through long unpredictable downturns in generated output, which was the topic being discussed. Its a national necessity, but its hard to imagine a system like that ever running at a profit.

When the grid is running with vast excesses of energy generation (as is the model where solar or wind provides large percentages of the total grid power) the prices will be pushed down, with more storage available the cheap energy can be soaked up and stored, but it may not be released within the following daily cycle if prices remain low. Further consider that once there is a large uncontrollable variance in the total generation capacity from the wind and solar intermittency that there will be fewer conventional plants competing to supply the energy during renewable generation lulls and prices will skyrocket during those periods, suddenly storage is both essential, and profitable.

Unless of course you have government interference in the market forces in which case leave it to them to fund the future. The situation in this thread yes?

[dannyf]

However, a system designed for profitable arbitrage is no bigger than the peak to trough span of the daily cycles.

Or simply use merchant plants: a gas turbine is the size of a house, and it can go into full power production in a matter of minutes.

Sure, it is expensive but far less cheaper than the environmental costs of a pumped station.

[coppice]

I just cannot resist:

The famously high cliffs around the UK coastline are an immediate and very cost effective location for storage,

and all the estimates I can come up with show enough capacity to meet the quantities of storage being discussed here.

"Can not compute! can not compute! can not compute!..."

Yep. Its puzzling, isn't it. Is that a troll? Someone who has completely lost the plot? It doesn't even make sense as Disney Britain. Even that has King Arthur's Avalon only just above the sea.

[tggzzz]

The famously high cliffs around the UK coastline are an immediate and very cost effective location for storage, and all the estimates I can come up with show enough capacity to meet the quantities of storage being discussed here. It takes land away from other uses (as you cant store enough with tidal only) but these are the trade-offs required when trying to meet energy independence with renewables.

Snort! Now you're just tossing out ideas to see who salutes them! You are clearly completely unfamiliar with the topography and size of the UK.

The famous cliffs in the south reach a peak, and I mean peak-as-in-point, height of 150m/600ft, here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=337987&Y=93035&A=Y&Z=115  As you can see when you look at the height and slopes, there's not much scope for hydro there! The rest of the south coast is pretty much the same. The rest of the UK's cliffs are not much better.

In contrast, in the vicinity of populated areas, Australia appears to have ~30000 square miles of more-or-less unpopulated ground above 2000ft - which would be suitable for pumped storage. Repeat after me, "UK != Australia".

[G7PSK]

The famously high cliffs around the UK coastline are an immediate and very cost effective location for storage, and all the estimates I can come up with show enough capacity to meet the quantities of storage being discussed here. It takes land away from other uses (as you cant store enough with tidal only) but these are the trade-offs required when trying to meet energy independence with renewables.

There are large parts of the UK which are well below sea level, I grew up in Cambridgeshire and would look up to see boats passing on the river. I suppose you could cut a hole in the sea wall and put a turbine in but then you would have to pump out the fens again along with all the drowned bodies, some one has not been to the UK is my guess.

[KJDS]

There's another small issue with building anything on top of an English cliff, most of them are collapsing into the sea on a regular basis

[G7PSK]

The whole of the south east of the UK is slowly tipping into the sea as well but on the up side Scotland is rising,so that should help a bit.

[tggzzz]

There's another small issue with building anything on top of an English cliff, most of them are collapsing into the sea on a regular basis

I'll modify that just a little. Once upon a time they were hills, ripples left over from when Africa hit Europe. But the hills gradually collapsed into the sea - thereby forming the cliffs.

Either way, they are useless for pumped storage.