We've got close to 6GWh battery capacity now with just over 4.3GW of rated output. Don't get too excited though thats would cover 12mins of a winters UK day demand. Even on the build out rates being promoted its will be years before it even matches PSP capability. Of course the NZ evangelists will tell you that we just need more storage but fail to get their heads around that means about 300x what we have now to cover for dunkelflaute scenario.
Chapter 2, Box 1 informs "There is also a growing capacity of battery electricity storage at grid-scale, which is discharged more frequently, usually across minutes to hours, and has been estimated at 2.4 GW (2.6 GWh) of capacity across 161 sites."
The House of Commons Research Briefing 19 April 2024 "Battery energy storage systems" page 12 Table "Number and capacity of operational BESSs and BESSs under/awaiting construction" informs "Number and capacity of operational BESSs ..." at 2.0GW power, but fails to give storage capacity!
In case it's of interest, I looked at how much electricity storage would be needed just to smooth UK Solar generation on a fairly typical sunny spring day 2023.
In this post I was focussing on electrical energy storage, so your gas data - although welcome info, ty - is not relevant to the post. And yes, 'line pack' in gas pipelines is definitely a useful thing.
The pumped hydro storage (PHS) capacity is, I think, about 24 GWh. If your figure of 27 GWh comes from Prof MacKay's '... hot air' Table 26.4 I think the Cruachan capacity is lower as I explain via that link:
So, I ran my numbers on the basis of the power capacity (200MW) of the Statkraft BESS project, but also on the energy storage capacity (2 hours) of that project, as it's a recent project for which the cost *should* be reasonably accurate / up to date.
If I'd run the numbers based on PHSs we would need ~7,000MW/2,788MW ~ 2½ times our current PHS power capacity... but after 10-20 years - PHS schemes being what they are - and at what cost?
Plus, of course, PHSs can only be sited in hilly / mountainous country requiring 7,000MW of grid capacity to & from. Whereas BESSs can be sited closer to the generating assets & hopefully not too far from Demands, so hopefully reducing grid reinforcement needs/costs.
"If your figure of 27 GWh comes from Prof MacKay's '... hot air' Table 26.4 I think the Cruachan capacity is lower ...."
Yes, that was my source!
See my reply to Nickrl - am I the only one thinking it's a nightmare trying to ascertain correct data on Britain's energy storage capabilities?
The BBC had an article with a ludicrous claim "BESS: The charged debate over battery energy storage systems"
Originally it stated:
"As more power comes from wind and solar, the need for these batteries and similar storage sites is expected to grow.
"At the moment we have a total installed capacity in the UK of about 77gW, of which only 24gW is renewable," said Prathivadi Anand from the University of Bradford.
Dr Anand, a professor of public policy and sustainability, continued: "The more we rely on renewables, we need something to balance it, because the wind is not always blowing and the sun is not always shining." "
After pointing out power units should be 'GW' not, 'gW', and that the professor of public policy and sustainability used ludicrous numbers and incorrect units for energy storage, the Beeb tried a stealth edit, then a futher complaint escalated to its ECU forced a public correction. (It simply deleted Dr Anand's contribution:
"It's only in Australia where I'm seeing reference to 4-h and even 8-h in possible future projects, but whether that would be economic I don't know."
Tesla will sell those with the funds either 2- or 4-hour duration grid batteries.
Provide the land and the installation crew, plus budget for carriage from factory to site, and a 1.9 MW Power / 3.9 MWh storage capacity would be $1.03million; 1 MW Power / 3.9 MWh Energy would be $963,540 for a delivery to California.
Have you noticed that many (if not the majority) of puff pieces relating to electricity storage, generally mention either discharge power capability, or energy storage capacity, but rarely both? I've not carried out a formal analysis, but I suspect the majority of puff pieces relating to electricity storage fail to actually mention storage capacity!
Hi Ron, thank you for more info, another post upcoming :)
Re: that BBC article, and to be fair to Prathivadi Anand from the University of Bradford: it is entirely possible that the "gW" stupidity was introduced by the know-nothing BBC authors. Interview the guy, hear "GW", write "gW", what would they know? Probably.
Only one windmill has reported on REMIT that it output would be restricted due to ambient conditions but doesn't mean a stash of them didn't manage it by setting FPNs to zero before gate closure. Also the centre of the depression tracked across Hornsea earlier reducing that to c10% of rated output this morning but as its tracked further East Hornsea has picked up again. The main issue as usual is transmission constraints from Scotland to England. Its pretty surprising no one has really majored on what an utter fiasco this is and how OFGEM thwarted NGs plans for years to increase transmission capacity. They've now flipped the other way and are authorising the Great Grid Upgrade wholesale without waiting to ensure whether anymore windmills are actually going to be built thus adding even more cost to consumer bills.
The post is quite effective in demonstrating that these are not investments that would have been made if the incentive for were a tax on net emissions of CO2. It is not clear from this post (I do not read often enough to know if other posts deal with the issue) how he would propose to alter policy.
I think investments in UK, as in other countries, should be made that mimic as closely as possible the effects of a tax on net emissions so long as it does not have such a tax.
Thomas, re: "how he would propose to alter policy" who "he"? Me? I don't set policy.
And I think I've replied to you before that I disagree with ever more taxes being levied, even your favoured tax on CO2, because I don't trust taxing authorities to spend the money on anything useful. Far more likely they'll use it to give ever bigger bungs to their mates / favoured causes / the winners they've picked.
Solar is useful when paired with heavily insulated buildings fitted with air conditioning. Sunshine and temperature are very correlated. You can engineer a building to require only a little heating in winter and to get too hot in summer, then use solar powered air conditioning to fix that.
Theoretically there is about 40GWh (40KWh * 1 million cars) of storage capacity in electric cars already. If that can be exploited by things like Octopus Energy's Intelligent tariffs or free electricity offers then it is likely to be able to soak up most wind events that currently lead to curtailment in the next few years, as the number of electric cars is growing fast.
Re: "Sunshine and temperature are very correlated." Have you looked at California or Texas? In summer, long after the sun's gone down it's still stiflingly-hot.
And yes, you can design a *new* building with very effective thermal insulation, but solutions in cold climates need to be suitable for the existing housing-stock as well.
EVs *could* offer extra storage, *if* they aren't being used for driving around, *if* they can be plugged in... at the right time (private drives vs. the rest), and so on.
On energy storage, Britain's electricity grid has approx 29GWh capacity comprising 27GWh of pumped hydro + ~2GWh of batteries.
We've approx 47,000GWh of natural gas storage comprising >34,000GWh of underground (gaseous) storage + 13,000GWh of LNG storage.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/GB%20Gas%20Storage%20Data%20January%202024.pdf
Often overlooked is the fact that electricity transmission cables store zero, whilst our natural gas transmission pipework stores >4,000GWh.
We've got close to 6GWh battery capacity now with just over 4.3GW of rated output. Don't get too excited though thats would cover 12mins of a winters UK day demand. Even on the build out rates being promoted its will be years before it even matches PSP capability. Of course the NZ evangelists will tell you that we just need more storage but fail to get their heads around that means about 300x what we have now to cover for dunkelflaute scenario.
Hi Nickrl
Thanks for the info on battery storage capacity. Do you have a source for your "We've got close to 6GWh battery capacity now ..." please?
My comment referred specifically to grid-storage capacity.
The House of Lords Science and Tech Committee earlier this year published its "Long-duration energy storage: get on with it Contents"
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5804/ldselect/ldsctech/68/6805.htm#_idTextAnchor007
Chapter 2, Box 1 informs "There is also a growing capacity of battery electricity storage at grid-scale, which is discharged more frequently, usually across minutes to hours, and has been estimated at 2.4 GW (2.6 GWh) of capacity across 161 sites."
The House of Commons Research Briefing 19 April 2024 "Battery energy storage systems" page 12 Table "Number and capacity of operational BESSs and BESSs under/awaiting construction" informs "Number and capacity of operational BESSs ..." at 2.0GW power, but fails to give storage capacity!
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7621/CBP-7621.pdf
Neither of those sources covers themselves with glory.
The HoL S&T paper ludicrously claims "The UK stores around 10 TWh of natural gas" despite Ofgem itemising our 34TWh of gaseous storage facilities.
The HoC research briefing on page 10 "Other types of energy storage systems
Some examples of long-duration energy storage include:
Pumped hydroelectric storage: ... According to the
British Hydropower Association, the UK’s pumped hydropower capacity
was 2.8 GW or 32 GWh (see box 2 for an explanation of the difference)". Its source for that erroneous '32GWh' was the British Hydropower Association.
The British Hydropower Association page https://british-hydro.org/hydropower-in-the-uk/ click "About Hydropower" tab, "Pumped Storage Hydro" then expand 'Key statistics'.
It ludicrously claims "Ffestiniog (1963) 360 MW, 7.6 GWh"
Ffestiniog's owner 'Engie' confirmed to me that its storage capacity was 1.4GWh (with 360MW power).
Latest MODO update for Q3 https://modoenergy.com/research/battery-energy-storage-buildout-commercial-operation-pipeline-q3-2024-great-britain-capacity-market-gb-benchmark-pro
Thanks Nickrl
It gets frustrating reading "259 MW of new-build battery energy storage ..."
MW being power (discharge capability), not energy.(storage capacity).
Thank you for the info, Nick.
In case it's of interest, I looked at how much electricity storage would be needed just to smooth UK Solar generation on a fairly typical sunny spring day 2023.
https://chrisbond.substack.com/p/solar-power-a-growing-problem
With no margin, no allowance for losses: 42,000 MWh.
[see the 'Cumulatively for the whole of GB ...' plot in that post.]
I got feedback that my proposal to require Solar facilities to provide smoothed constant power to the grid was unrealistic and financially unviable.
Probably true, all the while GB power is being run for the benefit of the power generating Cos.
Thank you Ron.
In this post I was focussing on electrical energy storage, so your gas data - although welcome info, ty - is not relevant to the post. And yes, 'line pack' in gas pipelines is definitely a useful thing.
The pumped hydro storage (PHS) capacity is, I think, about 24 GWh. If your figure of 27 GWh comes from Prof MacKay's '... hot air' Table 26.4 I think the Cruachan capacity is lower as I explain via that link:
https://chrisbond.substack.com/i/48867204/pumped-storage-expanded
[If you find different, pls advise.]
But the other key aspect of the PHS is the combined power at which the four schemes can 'charge up'. That number is 0.36+0.4+0.3+1.728* = 2.788 GW.
* Dinorwyg: "Average full unit over all heads (declared capacity) 288 MW Generation potential at full load" x 6 units. https://www.fhc.co.uk/en/power-stations/dinorwig-power-station/
So, I ran my numbers on the basis of the power capacity (200MW) of the Statkraft BESS project, but also on the energy storage capacity (2 hours) of that project, as it's a recent project for which the cost *should* be reasonably accurate / up to date.
If I'd run the numbers based on PHSs we would need ~7,000MW/2,788MW ~ 2½ times our current PHS power capacity... but after 10-20 years - PHS schemes being what they are - and at what cost?
Plus, of course, PHSs can only be sited in hilly / mountainous country requiring 7,000MW of grid capacity to & from. Whereas BESSs can be sited closer to the generating assets & hopefully not too far from Demands, so hopefully reducing grid reinforcement needs/costs.
Hi Chris
"If your figure of 27 GWh comes from Prof MacKay's '... hot air' Table 26.4 I think the Cruachan capacity is lower ...."
Yes, that was my source!
See my reply to Nickrl - am I the only one thinking it's a nightmare trying to ascertain correct data on Britain's energy storage capabilities?
The BBC had an article with a ludicrous claim "BESS: The charged debate over battery energy storage systems"
Originally it stated:
"As more power comes from wind and solar, the need for these batteries and similar storage sites is expected to grow.
"At the moment we have a total installed capacity in the UK of about 77gW, of which only 24gW is renewable," said Prathivadi Anand from the University of Bradford.
Dr Anand, a professor of public policy and sustainability, continued: "The more we rely on renewables, we need something to balance it, because the wind is not always blowing and the sun is not always shining." "
Thanks to the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230930183538/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-66584335
After pointing out power units should be 'GW' not, 'gW', and that the professor of public policy and sustainability used ludicrous numbers and incorrect units for energy storage, the Beeb tried a stealth edit, then a futher complaint escalated to its ECU forced a public correction. (It simply deleted Dr Anand's contribution:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66584335
(Scroll to end to see "Amendment: 11th September 2024 This article has been amended to remove a quote." ;-)
Hi Ron,
Re: your "am I the only one thinking it's a nightmare trying to ascertain correct data on Britain's energy storage capabilities?"
Pls see my post of today.
I found a current list of operating Battery assets.
Total about 2½ GW power (if all working together, unlikely)
But no official record of MWh stored.
Probably the majority will be 1-h duration, a few may be 2-h.
It's only in Australia where I'm seeing reference to 4-h and even 8-h in possible future projects, but whether that would be economic I don't know.
"It's only in Australia where I'm seeing reference to 4-h and even 8-h in possible future projects, but whether that would be economic I don't know."
Tesla will sell those with the funds either 2- or 4-hour duration grid batteries.
Provide the land and the installation crew, plus budget for carriage from factory to site, and a 1.9 MW Power / 3.9 MWh storage capacity would be $1.03million; 1 MW Power / 3.9 MWh Energy would be $963,540 for a delivery to California.
https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design
Have you noticed that many (if not the majority) of puff pieces relating to electricity storage, generally mention either discharge power capability, or energy storage capacity, but rarely both? I've not carried out a formal analysis, but I suspect the majority of puff pieces relating to electricity storage fail to actually mention storage capacity!
Hi Ron, thank you for more info, another post upcoming :)
Re: that BBC article, and to be fair to Prathivadi Anand from the University of Bradford: it is entirely possible that the "gW" stupidity was introduced by the know-nothing BBC authors. Interview the guy, hear "GW", write "gW", what would they know? Probably.
Only one windmill has reported on REMIT that it output would be restricted due to ambient conditions but doesn't mean a stash of them didn't manage it by setting FPNs to zero before gate closure. Also the centre of the depression tracked across Hornsea earlier reducing that to c10% of rated output this morning but as its tracked further East Hornsea has picked up again. The main issue as usual is transmission constraints from Scotland to England. Its pretty surprising no one has really majored on what an utter fiasco this is and how OFGEM thwarted NGs plans for years to increase transmission capacity. They've now flipped the other way and are authorising the Great Grid Upgrade wholesale without waiting to ensure whether anymore windmills are actually going to be built thus adding even more cost to consumer bills.
Anyhow thanks for producing the post.
The post is quite effective in demonstrating that these are not investments that would have been made if the incentive for were a tax on net emissions of CO2. It is not clear from this post (I do not read often enough to know if other posts deal with the issue) how he would propose to alter policy.
I think investments in UK, as in other countries, should be made that mimic as closely as possible the effects of a tax on net emissions so long as it does not have such a tax.
Thomas, re: "how he would propose to alter policy" who "he"? Me? I don't set policy.
And I think I've replied to you before that I disagree with ever more taxes being levied, even your favoured tax on CO2, because I don't trust taxing authorities to spend the money on anything useful. Far more likely they'll use it to give ever bigger bungs to their mates / favoured causes / the winners they've picked.
Solar is useful when paired with heavily insulated buildings fitted with air conditioning. Sunshine and temperature are very correlated. You can engineer a building to require only a little heating in winter and to get too hot in summer, then use solar powered air conditioning to fix that.
Theoretically there is about 40GWh (40KWh * 1 million cars) of storage capacity in electric cars already. If that can be exploited by things like Octopus Energy's Intelligent tariffs or free electricity offers then it is likely to be able to soak up most wind events that currently lead to curtailment in the next few years, as the number of electric cars is growing fast.
Jamie, thanks for your comments, but...
Re: "Sunshine and temperature are very correlated." Have you looked at California or Texas? In summer, long after the sun's gone down it's still stiflingly-hot.
And yes, you can design a *new* building with very effective thermal insulation, but solutions in cold climates need to be suitable for the existing housing-stock as well.
EVs *could* offer extra storage, *if* they aren't being used for driving around, *if* they can be plugged in... at the right time (private drives vs. the rest), and so on.