Hinkley Point C

Batteries are surely only suitable for local grid not national grid? Down to property level people will be generating from their own wind and solar, storing the power in batteries in their garden, and only drawing from the DNOs at times of low wind and sun.

Similarly, I'm really interested in the potential for electric vehicles to act as mobile batteries.

Anyone with an EV has a 20-50 ish kWh store parked outside. With smart meters and some clever electronics the car could charge when grid demand is low and discharge into the house to run appliances etc. when supply is low.
 
Similarly, I'm really interested in the potential for electric vehicles to act as mobile batteries.

Anyone with an EV has a 20-50 ish kWh store parked outside. With smart meters and some clever electronics the car could charge when grid demand is low and discharge into the house to run appliances etc. when supply is low.

It isn't even demanding particularly clever electronics - the fundamentals are used by every USB powerbank out there. Not sure how practical it would be though as it would be a bit inconvenient if you ran the car batteries down that way and then needed to go somewhere.
 
Current batteries are not viable for use as storage for the national grid to provide supply to cover fluctuations in supply from wind power. You'd need many GWh of storage replaced far too often.

Organic flow batteries might be able to do the job, if they existed as more than lab prototypes.

except they are. tesla has been selected to build an 80mwh battery bank to smooth out los angeles power supply. They plan to have 1.3Gwh by 2020 of storage.

modern batteries do not die in short period, or lose their storage potential quickly.
people also aren't taking into account the cost of nuclear waste.
every which way you look at the nuclear plan, it is full of money pits and issues.

Please do some calculations before putting your hopes in batteries as a viable form of grid storage to support the utopia of majority renewables.

Current winter peak demand is 60GW before the Climate Madness Act requiring 80% CO2 reductions by 2050 means all heting and cooking needs to be CO2 free as well.

60GW times 4 hours a standard SFA block for grid management purposes therefore requires 240GWh and equivalent battery storage to provide that even at £100/kWh is £24Bn. In practice in the winter if you were at some notional 100% renewables you might need at least 72 hours supply not 4 so maybe £432Bn on storage. Push the cost of the actual generation assets. How long do batteries last 10 years? That might be £40Bn a year to maintain your battery capacity.

I honestly don't expect the solution to be as above but the costs are provided for illustration.

Drive to your nearest stil operating coal station, the big black mound beside it is probably enough to keep it running full load for 3-6 months.
:rolleyes:
please do some proper maths.
we are not saying create all our power from renewables over night. why you have gone with 60gw is bizarre.
Hinkley C is just 3GW, if your going to compare costs, do it like for like.
and the cost of thousands of years of nuclear waste storage, which people like to ignore?
let alone the cost to build, then decommission. the 10 year time scale, which is likely to slip?
what we do in that 10 year build widow, as we need more now.

Similarly, I'm really interested in the potential for electric vehicles to act as mobile batteries.

Anyone with an EV has a 20-50 ish kWh store parked outside. With smart meters and some clever electronics the car could charge when grid demand is low and discharge into the house to run appliances etc. when supply is low.

and is something national grid is already looking into, and you would be paid if you let them use your batteries. national average is less than 25 miles per day driven, leaving most people more than able to generate some income by allowing battery bank to be used in grid.
 
Last edited:
Similarly, I'm really interested in the potential for electric vehicles to act as mobile batteries.

Anyone with an EV has a 20-50 ish kWh store parked outside. With smart meters and some clever electronics the car could charge when grid demand is low and discharge into the house to run appliances etc. when supply is low.

****ing away ~30% of the power though through losses and Drastically shortening the lifespan of the batteries
 
Drastically shortening the lifespan of the batteries

you need to get away from this, they really don't suffer battery loss like they used to. even on permanent supercharges. A uk Nissan Leaf taxi, has clocked up over 100,000 miles, done over 1700 rapid charges and is still at 98% capacity.
 
except they are. tesla has been selected to build an 80mwh battery bank to smooth out los angeles power supply. They plan to have 1.3Gwh by 2020 of storage.

I was just reading that and came back to post it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-battery-storage-after-porter-ranch-gas-leak

Tesla Wins Massive Contract to Help Power the California Grid

Tesla just won a bid to supply grid-scale power in Southern California to help prevent electricity shortages following the biggest natural gas leak in U.S. history. The Powerpacks, worth tens of millions of dollars, will be operational in record time—by the end of this year.

Tesla Motors Inc. will supply 20 megawatts (80 megawatt-hours) of energy storage to Southern California Edison as part of a wider effort to prevent blackouts by replacing fossil-fuel electricity generation with lithium-ion batteries. Tesla's contribution is enough to power about 2,500 homes for a full day, the company said in a blog post on Thursday. But the real significance of the deal is the speed with which lithium-ion battery packs are being deployed.
 
you need to get away from this, they really don't suffer battery loss like they used to. even on permanent supercharges. A uk Nissan Leaf taxi, has clocked up over 100,000 miles, done over 1700 rapid charges and is still at 98% capacity.

Some of the new tech coming in has quite impressive resilience to multiple charges and holding its charge over time - we are still some way from batteries really being completely viable in this area though.
 
you need to get away from this, they really don't suffer battery loss like they used to. even on permanent supercharges. A uk Nissan Leaf taxi, has clocked up over 100,000 miles, done over 1700 rapid charges and is still at 98% capacity.

The teslas just use basic 18650s they still have major losses.
 

yep, but peoples onions still seem to be based on batteries from 10 years ago. I don't know how large the power company is, but 1.3gwh of storage by 2020 is impressive.

on top of that people are ignoring the costs and issues of nuclear. namely waste and the over runs, issues and price hikes of plants currently being built elsewhere. its so rubbish they're having to substantially redesign the power plant part way through construction. I might be wrong, but that's the same design were using(or was that one of the other sites proposed as we went with shot gun approach and seem to pick a different design for each site) , so we don't even have a final design for it yet.
 
The teslas just use basic 18650s they still have major losses.

wrong again. They now use their own cells which are specifically designed for their use. They are also using different designs for the grid storage batteries.

so you just going to ignore the leaf example, and other evs that have now been around long enough to do some large mileages.
 
Last edited:
Ok well googling the leaf nissan recomends that it be fischagred below 80% before techarging and that number of cycles will reduce life expectancy.

Life expectancy is 70% vapacity after 10 years of bornal use.

Using it as a stationary battery for your house is going to drastically increase the number of charges well beyond normal driving (peobbaly vpiding your warrenty too) and so makes a real world driving example irellevant.

As for tesla no theys till use 18650s. I can find nothing saying theyve moved on from them.
 
You cannot compare the designed for driving charges with continuous charge dischage of a storage battery
 
oh god, so you are just going to ignore real world usage, of hch we now have quite a lot.

yes tesla do use 18650, that is a specific size of which can be filled with many different types of cell chemistry and no they are no longer off the shelf chemistry. So just lol.

so we should go with you, who have shown a massive lack of understanding, over experienced people in the field. including a giant power company. I know who I'm going to trust, it aint you.
 
Last edited:
except they are. tesla has been selected to build an 80mwh battery bank to smooth out los angeles power supply.

So at a cost of "tens of millions of dollars" they will provide storage capacity for approximately half a second of average electricity consumption in the USA.

So no, batteries are not currently viable as storage for a national grid. Not even vaguely close to within screaming distance of it. Not even if you ignore reduction in capacity from charge/discharge cycles (which, due to the different usage, could not be anywhere near as efficient as in a car with an excellent battery management system). Not even if you assume a battery will last for a hundred years without any degradation at all.

You are gilding the lily to such an extent that it doesn't even resemble reality any more and your gold is fake too. It's counter-productive because what you claim can be proven false with 30s of reading and can't be made true any time soon. If people believe you they will be very disappointed and that may taint the whole thing in their minds.
 
actually it would be far more efficient than cars, that are quick discharge, quick charge and still achieve aroud 95% capacity over very long terms. not only that, the data coming from EVS show that battery capacity drops rapidly then stays at 95%.

again why are you and others using national energy supply when hinkley c isn't going to supply 100% of our electrical demand.

also where did you get the cost from, seeing as it hasn't been disclose, and will be installing 1.3Gwh by 2020, the 80mwh is just the start,.

so if its so impratical, why are power companies starting to do it.
or like the others in this thread, are we goig to have to take your ramblings as evidence.

if you want some real numbers
10bn for 6GW of wind turbines, double that of hinkley c
20bn for ~70GWh of battery storage.

Which takes you to the expected 29.7bn cost of hinkley C, and that's at todays cost, without further drops in renewable and battery storage over the coming decade.
it also doesn't take into account of the extra cost for nuclear which is always ignored. like the waste. Also what do we do for ~10 years until it kicks in, we need more energy now.
on top of that it could easily be used to boost uk expertise, manufacturing, export and employing many 10s of thousands of people within the UK. unlike nuclear.

oh and unlike nuclear you can get investment, feed in tariff has been working very well.

at the envisioned £6bn and 5 years ago, it made perfect sense, at the continual revised costs upwards, and the drastic drop of renewable prices. The massive issues nuclear builds around the globe are experiencing, and exporting teh contracts and finance of our shores with no long term benefit it makes little sense.
 
Last edited:
So...why do you think manufacturers are lying about their own products to make them seem much worse than they really are?

they aren't, they are essentialy figures for warranties. Combined with little rel world figures, which are now eventually coming out. expect such figures to be revised in the fture.

real world figures, which mirror what leaf owners ahve been seeing. even with heavy raid charging.

ndetu.jpg
 
Re: the waste and decommissioning costs - they're included in what we get for our money, no? I'm sure that's what was said on Newsnight last week when they had the Lib Dem bloke who negotiated the deal.

Then re: the issues around the globe, by which I assume you're referring to the fact they haven't finished an EPR reactor yet. We don't pay anything if it doesn't end up getting built/the full burden is on EDF/the French/maybe China if the project isn't delivered. Again, that came from the Newsnight interview.

thats good if thats right, however it doesn't make it much better.
so in 8 years time and they cancel the protect, then what do we do for power? the rector is being redisgned mid build, and were signing up, its crazy.

also no way they will pay for proper waste management for thousands of years.
unless we have an agreement that they take the waste to china and France, and have that from the respective governments, then ts not worth much
 
oh god, so you are just going to ignore real world usage, of hch we now have quite a lot.

yes tesla do use 18650, that is a specific size of which can be filled with many different types of cell chemistry and no they are no longer off the shelf chemistry. So just lol.

so we should go with you, who have shown a massive lack of understanding, over experienced people in the field. including a giant power company. I know who I'm going to trust, it aint you.

they're still Panasonics rent they?

i cant find anything to say they're anything but them.

have you got a link?

and im not ignoring real world usage, you're the one taking normal car usage and then saying it would still apply to car+home support usage.

an entirely different scenario.




source for them not changing the chemistry
He [Elon Musk]said the battery cell chemistry is the same, but the reconfigured product stored more energy in the same space.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37171455

16th august 2016

wheres your source they've changed the chemistry? Cause Elon Musk disagrees with you.
 
Last edited:
they're still Panasonics rent they?

i cant find anything to say they're anything but them.

have you got a link?

and im not ignoring real world usage, you're the one taking normal car usage and then saying it would still apply to car+home support usage.

an entirely different scenario.
use they are Panasonic, as Panasonic are teslas partner and part owner of gigafactor.
not of hand, but Elon himself have said they use their own chemsitry and use a different chemistry for grid storage, due to lower currant needs and longer anticapated life.

no im not saying it can be directly transferred to. however cars are harder on batteries than grid storage, so cars can be used as worse case
 
Back
Top Bottom