Would love to understand whom within the system is dragging their feet. Is it ESO, or others, or all of the above. The damage from confusion and a lack of clarity or totally unacceptable. I find it very hard to understand why the ESO aren't ready to address any of this new governments ideas.
because there's no "local balancing mechanism", which is what the interviewee was suggesting. That's a way for battery owners to be paid to work with their local grid. At the moment we only have a national balancing market.
HOW on earth can a Grid Operator see Batteries as an exacerbation of Curtailment ? WHO is educating these people ? The Video was edited /Cut at this exact point - why?
Batteries being modelled to export & import 24/7. So even if the system had high solar saturation in the generation profile of the system and price was low due to excessive solar generation, the batteries will still be modelled by the system operator to export at this time leading to even higher curtailment estimates. In commercial reality I think it is a fair assumption that I think you are eluding to that batteries in this time will be importing and therefore reducing excessive generation in the system rather than adding to it. But the operators do not model in this way and that is what the speaker is mentioning here I assume.
These figures simply do not make sense. The introduction mentions 700 gigawatts of transmission capcity. Our current grid maximum demand is around 45 Gigawatts, and depending on ev and heta pump take up may well rise. Heat pump load, in particular, will be concentrated for four or so months of the year meaning that much of the generating and transmission capacity will be under utilised for eight months of the year. Renewables are and will continue to be intermittent and that is a problem with no solution with current technology. Why are we throwing more money to support these second rate sources of generation. They also lack certain technical criteria which is expensive to overcome and less reliable. The route was and still is clear, nuclear is the only source of non CO2 emitting generation we can use which will give stable and reliable generation for decades of life per station. Renewable have about one third the life of modern nuclear plants and ultimately is a far cheaper solution. Our competitiveness in commerce and industry has been destroyed by the very high cost of electrical unit cost to the consumer (One of the highest in the world) due to the expansion of renewables. The government blame the cost of gas but that is a false claim.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[2/2] ประสบการณ์ขนหัวลุกจากตำนานวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T_kFecQw7Ds/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m having trouble seeing the links to some of the reports mentioned. Any help?
Would love to understand whom within the system is dragging their feet. Is it ESO, or others, or all of the above. The damage from confusion and a lack of clarity or totally unacceptable. I find it very hard to understand why the ESO aren't ready to address any of this new governments ideas.
Why can we not work with local sub station grids that can have battery storage and renewables added???
because there's no "local balancing mechanism", which is what the interviewee was suggesting. That's a way for battery owners to be paid to work with their local grid. At the moment we only have a national balancing market.
HOW on earth can a Grid Operator see Batteries as an exacerbation of Curtailment ? WHO is educating these people ? The Video was edited /Cut at this exact point - why?
Batteries being modelled to export & import 24/7. So even if the system had high solar saturation in the generation profile of the system and price was low due to excessive solar generation, the batteries will still be modelled by the system operator to export at this time leading to even higher curtailment estimates. In commercial reality I think it is a fair assumption that I think you are eluding to that batteries in this time will be importing and therefore reducing excessive generation in the system rather than adding to it. But the operators do not model in this way and that is what the speaker is mentioning here I assume.
These figures simply do not make sense.
The introduction mentions 700 gigawatts of transmission capcity.
Our current grid maximum demand is around 45 Gigawatts, and depending on ev and heta pump take up may well rise. Heat pump load, in particular, will be concentrated for four or so months of the year meaning that much of the generating and transmission capacity will be under utilised for eight months of the year.
Renewables are and will continue to be intermittent and that is a problem with no solution with current technology.
Why are we throwing more money to support these second rate sources of generation. They also lack certain technical criteria which is expensive to overcome and less reliable.
The route was and still is clear, nuclear is the only source of non CO2 emitting generation we can use which will give stable and reliable generation for decades of life per station. Renewable have about one third the life of modern nuclear plants and ultimately is a far cheaper solution.
Our competitiveness in commerce and industry has been destroyed by the very high cost of electrical unit cost to the consumer (One of the highest in the world) due to the expansion of renewables. The government blame the cost of gas but that is a false claim.