FES Scenarios Won’t Meet Energy Storage Needs
By Paul Homewood
Let’s have a look at the latest National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios, and see how they cater for the 100 TWh of energy storage recommended by the Royal Society.
I’ll focus on their Consumer Transformation scenario, which assumes mass take up of heat pumps, as opposed to mainly hydrogen heating, as this is the most likely route:
.
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-scenarios/documents
Electricity generation in 2050 is projected to be 875 TWh, compared to about 300 TWh now. Peak demand will be 113 GW. Given that winter demand is higher than summer, we might assume an average of 110 GW then; allowing for plant breakdowns and maintenance, we would need to plan for at least 120 GW of firm capacity.
125 TWh is to be used for electrolysis, but nearly all of this will go to transport, leaving just 12 TWh for electricity generation. Burning this in a thermal power station would only yield about 6 TWh. Other storage is miniscule, just over 100 GWh, only enough to smooth demand for an hour or so at peak times on a day to day basis.
Storage Capacity
These are the projected capacities:
| I/C | 20.95 |
| Bio | 0.21 |
| BECCS | 8.8 |
| Nuclear | 15.9 |
| Hydrogen | 21.24 |
| CCS Gas | 5.97 |
| Solar | 78.69 |
| Offshore Wind | 115.04 |
| Onshore Wind | 44.43 |
| Other Ren | 10.76 |
Capacity GW
Ignoring Interconnectors, there is just 62 GW of dispatchable capacity, including hydrogen. As we know, solar produces virtually nothing in winter, and if wind power is down to 10% of capacity, that would provide only 16 GW.
Even with I/Cs working flat out, we still only have 98 GW. This is however extremely unlikely, as a dunkelflaute would leave NW Europe dangerously short of wind power as well.
But this is only the tip of the problem. Assuming we have a seven day period when wind power is below 10%, which is known to be extremely common, we would need that 21 GW of hydrogen burning capacity to generate 3.5 TWh. But to produce that much electricity, these power plants would need to inout approximately twice as much hydrogen energy, as they would work at 50% efficiency. That means 7 TWh of hydrogen.
However as the top chart shows, there would only be 12 TWh of hydrogen produced during the whole year for use in electricity generation, and this is all likely to be used up just to meet the usual daily peaks and troughs of supply and demand. (In fact I suspect we will need much more, but that is a separate issue).
In reality then, we are unlikely to have enough hydrogen to keep those hydrogen generators going for even a week. And if we get 56 days of low wind power, as we did in 2018, we are truly up the creek; for a situation like that we would need at least 50 TWh of hydrogen.
Just as a double check, I have run a model of the expected generation from the capacity figures above. Hydrogen is obviously zero, as this is only converting wind power already counted. I have also excluded gas, as the expectation is this will only be used in emergency. The FES also assume that I/C s will lead to net exports, so this too is excluded.
| UF | TWH | ||
| I/C | 20.95 | ||
| Bio | 0.21 | 0.85 | 2 |
| BECCS | 8.8 | 0.85 | 66 |
| Nuclear | 15.9 | 0.95 | 132 |
| Hydrogen | 21.24 | ||
| CCS Gas | 5.97 | ||
| Solar | 78.69 | 0.11 | 76 |
| Offshore Wind | 115.04 | 0.45 | 453 |
| Onshore Wind | 44.43 | 0.25 | 97 |
| Other Ren | 10.76 | 0.6 | 57 |
| TOTAL | |
|
883 |
This suggests that over the year as a whole, the grid is no better than self sustaining, and that there is no spare capacity to produce the 100 TWh of storage demanded by the Royal Society.
This equates to about 140 TWh of electricity for electrolysis, and would need about 300 GW of offshore wind power, nearly three times the planned capacity.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Not completely off-topic (nothing climate/energy is) but if you have not seen the Electroverse Substack by Cap Alon you should try to do so. Unfortunately Cap has been forced to go the Substack route by having his blog blocked from earning advertising revenue – someone doesn’t like what he has to say. The paid version of his Substack is around £5 GB per month.
Until a three years ago there was a website/blog “Not by Fire but by Ice” by Robert Felix who wrote a number of very interesting books. Robert sadly died suddenly (not Covid). He was my go to for all “cold” news that didn’t normally make the MSM. Sadly his death cut that off. Even if you didn’t agree with a word of his scientific thoughts (unlikely) the cold events listed everyday usually with links were difficult to see anywhere else. As he said people send me stuff. Cap Alon’s Electroverse is now establishing that role. The events listed of the last few weeks have been stunning.
Yes, Robert Felix was a very good source especially during the 2021 Texas grid freeze, pointing out that the real death toll was around 700 due to those dying from a lack of hospital treatment. Some genuine deaths caused by the climate change insanity.
I too visited Robert Felix’s blog. A valuable source of reality. Thanks for the tip for
https://electroverse.info/
Which I hope is what you’re talking about
Yes that’s the one.
That’s it!! How can seemingly intelligent people (OK, we’re not talking MPs here) think that the country can save energy by using it to create another form of energy, at a loss, to power the country when, if the energy used….
Oh rowlocks, you all know what I mean…it’s all nonsense!
The report look a long read. It looks a first glance we use gas to make hydrogen to power home heating. This seems less than ideal in many ways. First being creating Hydrogen from Gas or Electricity is highly inefficient as you get a lot less power out then you put in. You still burn the gas, in fact a lot more gas for the same heat output, so your carbon footprint increases.
If we replace all gas boilers with heat pumps then our electric uses increase hugely plus we need a army of installers to switch out millions of boilers onto consumers who don’t want / understand them that will costs consumers more to operate than the gas they replace.
All in all a large mess with very few winners. Train wreck taking shape.
I think that what we are forgetting is the plan to eliminate the useless eaters. The next page of calculations after what they have allowed you to see here, Paul, will be the population (including not only our Beloved Leaders, but also economic migrants, naturally) that their Kunning Plan will be able to provide for.
Bad news for all us serfs, I fear.
What they forget is that in a much poorer economy, they are the useless eaters.
Things that can’t happen, won’t. But if you replace all gas boilers with heat pumps bad things will happen, including people will die.
Shapps will say, “That’s the plan!”
Again, I think the R.S. call for 100 twh of storage, is actually twh(t) not twh(e).
Since their hydrogen storage is only 30% efficient, 100 twh(t) (thermic) equates to only 30 twh(e) of electricity being stored.
Ralph
If it is, they have grossly underestimated, which Andrew Montford has indicated
The main problem being – these reports are so unclear, nobody know what they are talking about.
There is a three-fold difference in energy and costs here…
R
Ralf the correct nomenclature has been brought to your attention several times before. If you refuse to use it you are a complete fool and nobody will give a toss about your views. So for the last time it is kWh, MWh, TWh etc. Please attempt to be taken seriously by using the correct units. If you don’t like it that’s fine, it simply shows you are as thick as two short ones. Grow up.
If you think mwh and twh are milliwatt-hours and tinywatt-hours, you are a pratt of the highest order.
When you are finally allowed to wear long trousers, you might reflect on how small minded you are.
Ralph
Ralf you are a charlatan. If you can’t use the correct units nobody, but nobody ,will pay any attention to whatever you say. The difference between a mW and an MW is a factor of a mere billion – if you think that doesn’t matter you are an idiot. Use the correct nomenclature or shut up.
The child in short trousers does not even know what a charlatan is…
R
The RS figures are a bit clearer than that, though you do have to go digging in the Supplementary Appendices to get the details. They consider generation of between 1.3 and 1.8 times consumer demand and opt for the 1.3 times case – which gives total generation of 741 TWh against demand of 570TWh, implying 171TWh of round trip losses and curtailment spillage as an average. However, they assume high efficiency of electrolysis – 72%, and of hydrogen based generation – 55%, for 39.6% round trip. Some of the loss is curtailment because storage is full or because there is too much generation for the electrolysers to use. They do not offer a breakdown. They do state that the store is as hydrogen, which means that it can hold up to 55TWh of electricity supply on their assumptions. In total that would require 139TWh of generation to feed the electrolysers. Storage can be partially filled and emptied as the weather varies, rather than being exclusively used in a (multi) annual cycle. So total throughput over a year will be higher than the difference between maximum and minimum. Some years will see relatively little seasonal depletion of the store when winds are good. Other years or runs of years would see it substantially depleted: the averages hide that detail.
Other assumptions they make, particularly about the lack of fluctuation of demand seasonally or for challenging cold spells, are important in underestimating the storage requirement.
Because they assume low cost inputs storage appears to be relatively cheap. If instead of the low cost assumptions we take more realistic ones, then the tradeoff between extra generation and storage will tend to favour more generation because the storage output cost must cover the storage system cost and the round trip losses which are a multiple of the electricity supply cost.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZmrQw/1/
Which is why the Government legislated to create powers to take central control of our heating, our fridges and washing machines. Even if we had the foresight to install our own batteries, they want control of those too. And powers of forced entry to ensure our “smart” devices comply.
<img src=”https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fef3b0911-c4a8-4519-a596-9532dfd4ed5c_701x501.png“>
Solar power is irrelevant.
Historic data demonstrates that solar does not generate in the winter, and there is no point having a generation system that provides no energy during the three most important months of the year.
R
Solar power can be useful for niche purposes as I have said before, especially where daylight rather than actual sunlight is all that is needed to recharge.
I have had a couple of very useful conversations with a local manufacturer of window shutters and a couple of his customers on the advantage of “solar-powered” shutters. The upshot is that it should be possible to operate these in any situation since the actual power is only required for about 20 seconds twice a day.
Much the same applies to various intermittent applications such as some forms of road signage. I can’t go into detail because I am privy to some information which is not in the public domain but the potential is there.
Beyond these niches, solar is virtually useless beyond the 50th parallel for at least three months of the year as you rightly point out.
The idea that there is any sense in using natural gas to create hydrogen to replace natural gas is crazy. There has to be an analogy somewhere — probably in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland — but even a cretin should be bright enough to see the flaw in that idea.
The main role of solar is to provide power in summer months when winds tend to be slight. Adding some solar to the mix reduces the overall generation and storage requirement. However, as soon as you reach the point where solar starts exceeding summer Sunday midday demand you are starting to look at the curtailment/storage tradeoffs. The threat of this problem is why UK solar more or less ceased being subsidised. Large solar surpluses can cause significant problems, as already exemplified in e.g. South Australia.
There are so many unknowns in the FES analysis, how the hell we convert to hydrogen, wind and solar just for just electricity by 2050 and actually manage to distribute it, at an affordable cost is not very clear.
Then what about all the transport needs, shipping, airplanes and HGVs together with the chemical and plastics industry.
Net Zero is not achievable without a mammoth drop in living standards!
That’s the intention. It’s a collectivist ideology driving this pseudo religion. That means bringing everyone (except the elites) down to the lowest global common denominator. Now the march through our institutions has concluded, the endless clamour for ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ is rammed down our throats 24/7.
So basically, by rejecting heat pumps and battery cars we are helping the grid out by reducing demand.
Oh dear:
I think it is wishful thinking for them to assume there would be a high take up of heat pumps and EVs. I expect this is where they will come unstuck.
They plan to eliminate the alternatives most of the public would prefer.
OT…
The “Other Renewables” is basically assumed tidal energy, and that has a much lower capacity factor of about 25-30%. Much less during neap tides, and large ramping if deployed at scale, much like with solar. No way of improving it either – as Newton worked out, gravity is hard to beat – and that’s what controls the tides.
There are a lot of ‘bodies’ all hell bent on the destruction of our economy. All publicly funded I would guess.
Store this. Forget all the nonsense about making windmills and solar “work” and start shoveling coal and pumping gas into those boilers, then go back to splitting atoms.
“Two thirds of the hydrogen produced will be used in aviation…”
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, “air-bursting hydrogen bombs.”
Should point out that the RS storage of 100TWh is intended to cover a multi year shortage, and therefore takes several years to fill. the storage is full a significant proportion of the time, resulting in spillage that can’t be stored. During the initial fill you would need to keep proper dispatchable generation going to cover shortages, allowing the store to build from surpluses.
Years with shortages will still include periods where there is partial replenishment of the storage, but a net draw over the year as a whole. Such years can follow on to give a multi year draw.