dspp wrote:I'm just reading through the report.
They lost 1.9 GW of generation in total (1,878MW to be precise) compared with the backup provision of 1 GW.
You can see why senior people were choosing their words exceedingly carefully in the public interviews in the immediate aftermath. I expect that will continue to be the case.
Yes - but it doesn't seem to be bouncing National Grid into planning for such major outages - which would involve larger costs, ultimately to consumers.
They are "reviewing" the current 3 year plan to de-sensitise the protection on embedded generation - to me it was quite incredible that about 500MW of it simply tripped out on small transients that may have been reasonably predicted.
From experience, I know it is difficult to test generation systems under grid fault conditions - so perhaps it was not surprising that unexpected incidents occurred at Hornsea and Little Barford. Hornsea are convinced they know the reason and have corrected it. But the problem at Little Barford appears to be, as yet, unresolved. Could this be an endemic problem at other Gas fired power stations - or is it specific to Little Barford? In particular I'm thinking about the apparent failure of the steam bypass system.
Returning to the effects on consumers - as far as National Grid is concerned its load shedding worked correctly and should have caused very little inconvenience. The major problems on the railways seem to be of their own making.
So I think National Grid may be largely exonerated when Ofgem make their report. Although I still think that they were rather lax in the management of embedded generation.
I am still wading through the detail of the report, but:
1. Of course they (NG) will resist being bounced. To be bounced would be an admission they had overlooked something. Er, like that 500 MW of embedded .... So I agree with you on that as it was entirely foreseeable imho. I don't think NG should be entirely exonerated, and the reason I think that is because of this issue.
2. I tend to agree that the Hornsea and Litttle Barford were (so far in my reading) latent faults, i.e. ones that were a priori undetected. Whether they should have been detected in advance I am less certain of. Whether they are corrected now, I am even less certain of. Whether other power plants have similar latent faults, well I am quite sure they do (that last is based on my having been a power plant operator, albeit in the MW class, not the GW class). What are the chances of two latent faults combining in these circumstances. Hmmmm...... However I would agree that this is not an item to lay at NG's door.
3. Regarding the sensitivity of the embedded protections I have nil charitable thoughts towards the NG ESO and/or the DNOs on this matter. The amount of grief these people have caused the embedded generators is unbelievable. They have over the decades deliberately set standards criteria that are so tight that embedded are very frequently tripped off the network because the network itself is far more unstable than the NG ESO and/or DNOs are prepared to admit. So for them to now wring their hands and complain that the embeddeds are not riding through gets zero sympathy from me. They have no idea (or sympathy for) of the grief they have caused the embedded generators over the years, and so I have very little sympathy for them in return. As far as I am concerned if they want embedded to be supportive (in every respect) then they can pay for it. This is an item to be laid at all three doors: Ofgem + NG ESO + DNOs.
4. Regarding trains etc, full agree.
5. Regarding loadshedding. Yes, did exactly as it was supposed to.
6. Regarding costs if you look at this https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/br ... icity-bill
you can see that 23% is network costs, and 20% is environmental & social costs. When I look at https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes
I can see that all these items are nothing to do with the backup power. So the backup power is contained in the 23%. But when I look for e.g. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/key-term-expla ... work-costs
it doesn't help me identify what % of the 23% is backup power (etc) costs, presumably at the 1GW level, i.e. I cannot guesstimate what would be the £££ implication for the average consumer of (say) doubling it to 2GW of typical backup. Does anyone know how/where to drill into this ?