I'm Sorry, they Haven't a Clue

Analysis of another HMGov database reveals a deep lack of understanding of a fundamental issue with electrical energy storage

This post follows on from yesterday’s “No Wonder We're Skint” post, after I was made aware of HMGov’s Renewable Energy Planning Database (REPD) last updated 18 November 2024.

Before I continue, you may notice a recurrent theme in a number of my Substack posts:
a) data from GB shows that HMGov really does NOT understand what it’s committed itself to with its accelerated rush to ‘decarbonise’ the UK power system by 2030, and UK primary energy within ~2 decades thereafter.
b) data more generally shows that as jurisdictions install greater *capacities* of Wind and Solar generation, they have to curtail increasing quantities of power generated when weather conditions are good for ‘renewables’ in order to maintain control of grid frequency. [Because in an electrical grid, Supply must equal Demand every second of every minute of every day.]
c) data also generally shows that dispatchable sources of generation (hydro, coal, gas, nuclear) that are largely not weather-dependent have to be kept available and operational as ‘backup’ at night when the Wind is not blowing, otherwise the lights go out. Interconnections with neighbouring regions can postpone this effect, but as everyone in a wide area transitions to higher proportions of weather-dependent ‘renewable’ generation the margin before blackouts will be eroded.
d) data also shows that electrical energy storage does not yet exist at sufficient scale, nor sufficiently cheaply, to change b) or c) by significant amounts.

Today’s data from the official HMGov REPD database shows that neither HMGov’s Department for Net Zero, nor its consultant BarbourABI, understand a fundamental technical aspect of Energy Storage:

How long will it keep the lights on?

The ¦Definition Sheet¦ of the October 2024 (Q3) version of the REPD database. Installed capacity (MWelec) is defined; hours duration (if electricity storage) is not.

The ¦REPD¦ tab of the database has over ten thousand rows/records, and unlike in yesterday’s [poor] effort, at least uses numerical format for numbers. So one point for effort there for BarbourABI.

I filtered the database for “Operational” status, and for the following Technology Types:
“Hot Dry Rocks” [mainly to satisfy my own curiosity];
“Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity”;
“Liquid Air Energy Storage”;
“Battery”;
“Flywheels”;
“Compressed Air Energy Storage”; and
“Geothermal” [again mainly to satisfy my own curiosity]
This reduced the list to the following 126 records (in four page views):

Filtered REPD, screen #1, ending at row 5316

Filtered REPD, screen #2, starting at row 5316, ending at row 5448

Filtered REPD, screen #3, starting at row 5448, ending at row 6044

Filtered REPD, screen #4, starting at row 6044, ending at row 10844

The filtered data shows:

- there is a single operational “Hot Dry Rocks” scheme rated at 3 MW [probably continuous] at the top of screen #1. Worth noting by any ‘geothermal’ aficionado.

- also at the top of screen #1 the UK’s four Pumped Hydro Storage schemes are listed, rated a total of 2,828 MW. BUT there is no data telling us how many hours each might continue at that power / alternatively, how many MWh each stores at full capacity. [poorest of poor in an official database]

It gets worse.

- midway down screen #1 we see “Flywheels” rated at 400 MW. [Unless these have infinite mass and/or rotate at infinite speed, physics tells us they will run down as energy is taken from them. How quickly? Goodness only knows, this HMGov database doesn’t tell us… POOR!]

- screens #2 and #3 have only batteries [I’ll get back to them in a moment]

- screen #4 shows one operating “Compressed Air Energy Storage” scheme, but gives no indication of either a power rating nor a duration [Poor cubed]
Also no indication of a power rating for the one operating “Geothermal” scheme, but it again is likely to be continuous not energy storage [still poor]

There is no “Liquid Air Energy Storage” listed.

Batteries

You have to do a bit of logical manipulation on the data in the filtered database to determine the total installed power rating of all the operating batteries in the UK.¹
The relevant formula is shown for cell BB10844 (the bottom right corner of the displayed area): if cell F10844 is “Battery” then cell BB10844 value equals cell I10844 value. And so on for all of column BB in the filtered worksheet.

Then the total power rating of all the batteries is given by summing column BB,
i.e. is 2,498.1 MW…
for an unknown duration, maybe 1 hour, who knows? [Not DNZ, that’s for sure.]

So, when DNZ² tells you that everything is fine and their Net Zero plans are on track and absolutely achievable, ask yourself this:

Does the data show DNZ understand Energy?

I think the data shows the answer is a resounding NO!

Concerning, no?

---

Copyright © 2024 Chris S Bond

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely my own.

This material is not peer-reviewed.

I am against #GroupThink.

Your feedback via polite factual comments / reasoned arguments welcome.

1. If you simply sum column I you get a huge number because all the power ratings of other non-battery schemes are included in that total. This is a weakness of using Filters in Excel.

2. I refuse to call them DESNZ because all the evidence indicates the “Energy Security” part of their Dept. name is no longer valid. They are simply and solely the “Department of Net Zero”. #GroupThink writ large.