UK's largest battery storage facility at Tilbury substation(nationalgrid.com)
nationalgrid.com
UK's largest battery storage facility at Tilbury substation
https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-connects-uks-largest-battery-storage-facility-tilbury-substation
142 comments
It's promising how costs are dropping. CATL have recently announced sodium ion batteries with a cost around $40 per kWh and material costs around $10 so there's room for things to drop as production scales. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/08/catl-sodium-ion-batter...
CATL and BYD are both building 30 GWh per year plants or 60 GWh between them so that's enough for 100 Tilbury plants per year just from sodium batteries. And of course lithium batteries are still cranking along.
CATL and BYD are both building 30 GWh per year plants or 60 GWh between them so that's enough for 100 Tilbury plants per year just from sodium batteries. And of course lithium batteries are still cranking along.
It would be interesting to read up on the economics of power storage.
As to what price points for the batteries equates to different usage patterns.
Peak shaving, morning and evening peaks, occasional discharge.
Batteries can make money also by taking negative price electricity.
Once gas has been run out of the market more battery power availability could support carbon free steel I imagine where it is just electrochemistry.
At each point they’d be ruptures in the market, where some forms of electricity just can’t compete.
As to what price points for the batteries equates to different usage patterns.
Peak shaving, morning and evening peaks, occasional discharge.
Batteries can make money also by taking negative price electricity.
Once gas has been run out of the market more battery power availability could support carbon free steel I imagine where it is just electrochemistry.
At each point they’d be ruptures in the market, where some forms of electricity just can’t compete.
The trouble with "use free electricity" schemes is that the capital cost never sleeps: you have built a fixed plant, on a piece of land, and paid for that, regardless of whether it runs or not. So there's usually a fairly high minimum duty cycle to make it economically viable.
You could make the argument in the other direction: the AI training datacenters could run for 23/24 hours, saving electricity at the peak time when it's most expensive and when they're pushing up the cost of electricity for everyone else the most .. but of course all those GPUs are too expensive to leave idle.
You could make the argument in the other direction: the AI training datacenters could run for 23/24 hours, saving electricity at the peak time when it's most expensive and when they're pushing up the cost of electricity for everyone else the most .. but of course all those GPUs are too expensive to leave idle.
Indeed, the biggest constraint being I imagine the grid connection.
One thing I keep thinking is that with the grid being a network, there are certain key points in the network which would be extremely useful to have battery storage.
Overall the system may have peaks and troughs, however it is a network of edges, some my reach capacity for several hours a day, if battery storage could be built at these points, then the other edges could still be served.
Indeed some points may go up and down several times in a day, and a large enough battery to sate that demand could earn a lot.
I can't see the high level prices reflect the intricacies of a working network. It might be useful on the edges when power is brought in, but further in where use and demand are intertwined something more sophisticated would be needed.
I keep thinking there should be a good case for a simulator game so that people can understand how this really works. (Caveat the above is my chopped liver sliding down a wall version of it, I don't work in the industry and as a physics graduate I'm no doubt buoyed by an inherent arrogance of it being easier than it is.)
Normally if I have an idea, I find that someone has already done something already.
Are there any electricity network simulator games out there already?
One thing I keep thinking is that with the grid being a network, there are certain key points in the network which would be extremely useful to have battery storage.
Overall the system may have peaks and troughs, however it is a network of edges, some my reach capacity for several hours a day, if battery storage could be built at these points, then the other edges could still be served.
Indeed some points may go up and down several times in a day, and a large enough battery to sate that demand could earn a lot.
I can't see the high level prices reflect the intricacies of a working network. It might be useful on the edges when power is brought in, but further in where use and demand are intertwined something more sophisticated would be needed.
I keep thinking there should be a good case for a simulator game so that people can understand how this really works. (Caveat the above is my chopped liver sliding down a wall version of it, I don't work in the industry and as a physics graduate I'm no doubt buoyed by an inherent arrogance of it being easier than it is.)
Normally if I have an idea, I find that someone has already done something already.
Are there any electricity network simulator games out there already?
electricity peaks are probably reduced over time by hourly electricity prices. If a lot of people can save money by using electricity at cheaper hours the peak demand is reduced.
Plugging in your EV might charge to 40% immediately. When it charges to 80% doesn't matter if it has that charge in the morning. So it probably charges somewhere in the night.
Starting your dishwasher, washing machine dryer on a timer before you go to work, so it runs when energy is cheaper.
This doesn't eliminate the need for storage, but reduces its need.
Plugging in your EV might charge to 40% immediately. When it charges to 80% doesn't matter if it has that charge in the morning. So it probably charges somewhere in the night.
Starting your dishwasher, washing machine dryer on a timer before you go to work, so it runs when energy is cheaper.
This doesn't eliminate the need for storage, but reduces its need.
Check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
63days from start to completion. Paid itself off in 2 years. Saved consumers well over $100million/yr across the state in power bill reductions (only 1.8million people in that state and this is after the battery owners took their profit).
There's really nothing but positives from grid scale batteries. They cut out all those <0 and >100x price fluctuations on the grid and the payoff for investors is ridiculous right now.
Australia's expected to 20x it's grid connected battery capacity between 2024 and 2027. The growth in battery storage is ridiculous since the costs have come down. https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/top-20-countries-by-ba...
63days from start to completion. Paid itself off in 2 years. Saved consumers well over $100million/yr across the state in power bill reductions (only 1.8million people in that state and this is after the battery owners took their profit).
There's really nothing but positives from grid scale batteries. They cut out all those <0 and >100x price fluctuations on the grid and the payoff for investors is ridiculous right now.
Australia's expected to 20x it's grid connected battery capacity between 2024 and 2027. The growth in battery storage is ridiculous since the costs have come down. https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/top-20-countries-by-ba...
> There's really nothing but positives from grid scale batteries
I'm pretty sure they have a matching number of positives and negatives.
I'm pretty sure they have a matching number of positives and negatives.
:D one would hope.
Very droll
I wonder if that growth comes from grid-scale batteries or from domestic installations. There are huge government incentives for installing a home battery system and connecting it to a VPP, so I wonder if the policy is focused at the domestic or grid level.
Is it 300 or 600 MWh? Or is the storage 600, but it can deliver 300MW/h?
Edit: The company press release is much clearer: https://stateraenergy.co.uk/news/thurrock-energisation The storage is 300 MWh, but it can deliver a peak of 600 MW/h (presumably for half an hour).
Edit: The company press release is much clearer: https://stateraenergy.co.uk/news/thurrock-energisation The storage is 300 MWh, but it can deliver a peak of 600 MW/h (presumably for half an hour).
The orginal article is pretty clear:
The 300MW Thurrock Storage project... with a total capacity of 600MWh
The 300MW Thurrock Storage project... with a total capacity of 600MWh
The OP says it the other way around though. Power is 300MW and capacity 600MWh=2h*300MW. There is no mentioning of 300MWh in the OP.
Storage is measured in MWh, power in Watts, I think the original press release is wrong and it can output 300W for at most two hours. The following link confirms that: https://www.ess-news.com/2025/08/18/statera-energy-powers-up...
> The 300MW Thurrock Storage project, developed by Statera Energy, is now energised and delivering electricity flexibly to the network across London and the south east.
> With a total capacity of 600MWh, Thurrock Storage is capable of powering up to 680,000 homes, and can help to balance supply and demand by soaking up surplus clean electricity and discharging it instantaneously when the grid needs it.
Unless they updated the original post, that all sounds correct to me. It's a 2-hour battery, rather common in the industry.
EDIT: Ah, you mean the https://stateraenergy.co.uk/news/thurrock-energisation is wrong, with the fantastically outrageous statement of "delivering its full output of up to 600MWh within seconds."
> With a total capacity of 600MWh, Thurrock Storage is capable of powering up to 680,000 homes, and can help to balance supply and demand by soaking up surplus clean electricity and discharging it instantaneously when the grid needs it.
Unless they updated the original post, that all sounds correct to me. It's a 2-hour battery, rather common in the industry.
EDIT: Ah, you mean the https://stateraenergy.co.uk/news/thurrock-energisation is wrong, with the fantastically outrageous statement of "delivering its full output of up to 600MWh within seconds."
> "delivering its full output of up to 600MWh within seconds."
Ramp-up time for grid management is important but the value is all wrong.
Ramp-up time for grid management is important but the value is all wrong.
The units are wrong. I don’t understand why so many people struggle with the difference beteeen MWh and MW, including people on HN.
I've even seen this with people who say they are interested in and following this tech. I don't get it. The same mistake just happens over and over.
Journalists are some of the worst offenders.
Journalists are some of the worst offenders.
Yup, this happens for any technology with journalists. A noob journo will be absolutely clear that it's crucial they interviewed Jim Smith and not Jane Smith even if it so happens that gender was not at all important to the story, like maybe Smith witnessed a massive lightning bolt destroying the bandstand.
But they will muddle bits and bytes, nanograms and milligrams, volts and amps and they barely even seem to notice that they did it.
But they will muddle bits and bytes, nanograms and milligrams, volts and amps and they barely even seem to notice that they did it.
Sometimes they insist on being incorrect.
The Guardian refuses to write the degree symbol for temperatures, for example, and have even put this error into their style guide.
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-style-guide-c
The Guardian refuses to write the degree symbol for temperatures, for example, and have even put this error into their style guide.
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-style-guide-c
I don't want a degree symbol on my temperatures, but that's because I want them in Kelvin so they shouldn't have one.
300K is too hot and I begin sweating. The Grauniad's House Style is the least of its problems.
300K is too hot and I begin sweating. The Grauniad's House Style is the least of its problems.
As an aside, this is exactly the kind of nonsense you get when marketing or PR firms have control over final wording. Once had someone change "uninterruptible power supply" to "non-interruptible" and then finally "interruptible" and that is how it went out in the final press release. There was some harsh language that day.
I could forgive un to non-, but what the hell was the logic in just removing non-? That it was like (it isn't) [in]flammable just because the 'in' isn't negating 'terruptible'?
Actually, even that doesn't make sense, you can't remove non- from non-inflammable either, that would only work if it was the 'in' removed.
Actually, even that doesn't make sense, you can't remove non- from non-inflammable either, that would only work if it was the 'in' removed.
This is a great question and was pretty much the last straw for me. I explained in plain english what the purpose of the UPS and battery room was, to help the PR understand why we called the thing "uninterruptible". Somehow in the final edit she confused this with "well, if the grid power can be interrupted and your servers remain on... then this means he must have meant 'interruptible' power supply.
I hope this wasn't for a UPS company!
We were launching a new data centre in the UK (early 90s) and wanted to crow about how much power, battery, diesel, etc we had. I don't think the PR firm had any idea what most of the words meant.
You needed a relations management firm between you and the PR firm, turtles all the way down.
> This landmark 300MW battery storage site is capable of powering up to 680,000 homes with instantaneous power over two hours
Power is 300MW (300000000 Joules/second), which it can deliver for 2 hours, so capacity (energy contained in the device) is 600 MWh (or 2160000000000 Joules)
Power is 300MW (300000000 Joules/second), which it can deliver for 2 hours, so capacity (energy contained in the device) is 600 MWh (or 2160000000000 Joules)
Time to decouple the UK Electricity price from Gas so we can actually reap the benefits of this as a consumer.
It effectively decouples for any period when no gas is needed; so if those batteries let you turn off the gas generators for an hour the price decouples from gas.
Think OP is taking about UK bills which are coupled too the cost of gas for historical reasons. Which needs to change in my view too.
They aren't per se coupled to gas. Here's roughly how it works:
We work in half hours, 48 of them per day. If you're a very large user (e.g maybe you're a factory which makes cars), or if you choose to do this at home, you can be metered in half hours and billed this way.
In advance of the half hour, we guess how much power we might need. 9pm here soon, I reckon 30GW per the British mainland. Now we run an auction. Everybody who can make power from 9pm to 9:30 bids, saying how much they'd accept to make power
Then, starting from the lowest bids, we add bidders up to 30GW of power, those people will make our 30GW of electricity, and we pay all of them the same price, that price is last bid needed to meet our 30GW goal.
This is often a closed cycle gas turbine because:
1. There are fucking shitloads of them. Probably 35GW nameplate, maybe 40GW, that is a lot of power generation. More than any other single type (Wind can deliver about 20GW to the grid, solar is smaller, nuclear is much smaller, storage also smaller even if you count it as generation which it technically is not)
2. They are (almost, maintenance is necessary) always willing to run, for a price. Rain or shine, night or day, if there is gas at any price they can charge that price plus a little profit to make it into electricity. Only question is if you'll pay
For a typical home tariff the "supplier" you're paying has guessed that on average they'll make a healthy profit if they charge you say 24p per kWh plus standing.
They pay that half-hourly price, if they guessed badly wrong and can't cover the difference they go bankrupt, which sucks for the government who are on the hook to ensure you still get electricity anyway.
So, the de-coupling would happen automatically if the current system stayed the same but you added a lot of cheap storage and enough wind power that on average the country was mostly wind powered. Or indeed nukes or solar if somehow this country built loads of nuke stations or got improbably sunnier.
We work in half hours, 48 of them per day. If you're a very large user (e.g maybe you're a factory which makes cars), or if you choose to do this at home, you can be metered in half hours and billed this way.
In advance of the half hour, we guess how much power we might need. 9pm here soon, I reckon 30GW per the British mainland. Now we run an auction. Everybody who can make power from 9pm to 9:30 bids, saying how much they'd accept to make power
Then, starting from the lowest bids, we add bidders up to 30GW of power, those people will make our 30GW of electricity, and we pay all of them the same price, that price is last bid needed to meet our 30GW goal.
This is often a closed cycle gas turbine because:
1. There are fucking shitloads of them. Probably 35GW nameplate, maybe 40GW, that is a lot of power generation. More than any other single type (Wind can deliver about 20GW to the grid, solar is smaller, nuclear is much smaller, storage also smaller even if you count it as generation which it technically is not)
2. They are (almost, maintenance is necessary) always willing to run, for a price. Rain or shine, night or day, if there is gas at any price they can charge that price plus a little profit to make it into electricity. Only question is if you'll pay
For a typical home tariff the "supplier" you're paying has guessed that on average they'll make a healthy profit if they charge you say 24p per kWh plus standing.
They pay that half-hourly price, if they guessed badly wrong and can't cover the difference they go bankrupt, which sucks for the government who are on the hook to ensure you still get electricity anyway.
So, the de-coupling would happen automatically if the current system stayed the same but you added a lot of cheap storage and enough wind power that on average the country was mostly wind powered. Or indeed nukes or solar if somehow this country built loads of nuke stations or got improbably sunnier.
Right - but if we start getting a useful amount of time when the grid doesn't need any gas, the amount of coupling should start to drop off.
Solving the engineering challenges of "useful amount of time when the grid doesn't need any gas" without also digging into why the UK's energy pricing structure is such an outlier at the expense of consumers, seem a bit like one of those doomed attempts to solve a social issue by purely technical means.
Pretty much all of europe runs on marginal cost electricity.
The UK was just extra stupid by banning nearly all construction of onshore wind.
The UK was just extra stupid by banning nearly all construction of onshore wind.
While that is a slightly different cause, "banning nearly all construction of onshore wind" was and is a social issue. It's culture and politics, not engineering.
The only sensible way to do this I've heard is to roll out more renewables faster and so burn less gas.
Is there some other plans you support?
Is there some other plans you support?
While this is worthwhile, I think that the parent post may be referring more to the "UK Electricity price" to consumers, and how this is calculated. It is related, but not quite the same as "roll out more renewables faster and so burn less gas"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/20/why-the-uks...
> "If we actually paid the average price of what our electricity now costs to produce, our bills would be substantially cheaper."
> In simple terms: the price in the electricity market on any given day is dictated by the most expensive source of generation available, which in the UK would be its gas-fired power plants.
I support "roll out more renewables faster" and pricing reform. Linked article makes it clear that the UK has "one of the most expensive electricity markets in the world" and this impacts consumers and businesses.
Which does raise the question: who benefits from the current pricing arrangement, and why do they have the deciding vote?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/20/why-the-uks...
> "If we actually paid the average price of what our electricity now costs to produce, our bills would be substantially cheaper."
> In simple terms: the price in the electricity market on any given day is dictated by the most expensive source of generation available, which in the UK would be its gas-fired power plants.
I support "roll out more renewables faster" and pricing reform. Linked article makes it clear that the UK has "one of the most expensive electricity markets in the world" and this impacts consumers and businesses.
Which does raise the question: who benefits from the current pricing arrangement, and why do they have the deciding vote?
Is this not simply how markets work? Everything is sold at the marginal price.
You could change that, but it would just mean prices will be higher at another moment (in a perfect market), no?
You could change that, but it would just mean prices will be higher at another moment (in a perfect market), no?
> Is this not simply how markets work?
The UK is an outlier as noted above. So no, this is not "simply how things work" in general. It's unusual.
> it would just mean prices will be higher at another moment, no?
No, see first quoted piece of text above.
My assumption also is that it's a far from perfect market - see last paragraph.
The UK is an outlier as noted above. So no, this is not "simply how things work" in general. It's unusual.
> it would just mean prices will be higher at another moment, no?
No, see first quoted piece of text above.
My assumption also is that it's a far from perfect market - see last paragraph.
The UK isn't an outlier in this regard. It's a fairly standard setup.
So you disagree with the article above, which says "Britain continues to have one of the most expensive electricity markets in the world" ?
And "Britain paying highest electricity prices in the world"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/26/britain-burd..."
And "Why are Britain’s power prices the highest in the world?"
https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q4-2024/why-are-brita...
And "UK energy bills highest in Europe and public patience is wearing thin"
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-energy-bills-highest-in-europe...
"highest" means an outlier, doesn't it?
And "Britain paying highest electricity prices in the world"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/26/britain-burd..."
And "Why are Britain’s power prices the highest in the world?"
https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q4-2024/why-are-brita...
And "UK energy bills highest in Europe and public patience is wearing thin"
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-energy-bills-highest-in-europe...
"highest" means an outlier, doesn't it?
It being more expensive in Britain doesn't mean it doesn't work the same way (just come out with a lower price) elsewhere in the world.
From your electricinsights article:
> Most markets work in this way: Saudi Arabia’s oil is cheap to produce but gets a very similar price to higher-cost oil from the North Sea. The underlying economic principle is so widespread that it’s known as the Law of One Price.
From your electricinsights article:
> Most markets work in this way: Saudi Arabia’s oil is cheap to produce but gets a very similar price to higher-cost oil from the North Sea. The underlying economic principle is so widespread that it’s known as the Law of One Price.
OK, I get it. The UK is an outlier in outcome, but not in process.
But I still think there's something very British in insisting "Why, it's all above board, we play by the same rules as everyone else of course. We just get a worse outcome than anyone else because, well ... um ... look over there! Immigrants!!" (I'm not paraphrasing you, rather the country as a whole)
British exceptionalism at its finest.
But I still think there's something very British in insisting "Why, it's all above board, we play by the same rules as everyone else of course. We just get a worse outcome than anyone else because, well ... um ... look over there! Immigrants!!" (I'm not paraphrasing you, rather the country as a whole)
British exceptionalism at its finest.
If you want corruption it's much more up front. The Conservatives effectively banned onshore wind in England for a decade just after it became the cheapest source of electricity available.
Real Trump-level stupid and like Trump, the media seems to be actively diverting attention from it.
That and not installing insulation or mandating new homes to be better built cost the country billions and it got more costly when gas prices spiked.
The current govenrment can't shift costs from clean electricity to dirty gas, or to general taxation, because the media would crucify them. Meanwhile Farage is campaigning on getting rid of net zero and the NHS and they love him.
The same media starting a culture war about heat pumps at the moment. Basically if you assume the media and the political right are owned by gas and oil interests, the politics since North Sea discoveries make a lot more sense. It's like they were trying to burn as much of it as inefficiently as possible rather than use it wisely for its owners, the people.
Real Trump-level stupid and like Trump, the media seems to be actively diverting attention from it.
That and not installing insulation or mandating new homes to be better built cost the country billions and it got more costly when gas prices spiked.
The current govenrment can't shift costs from clean electricity to dirty gas, or to general taxation, because the media would crucify them. Meanwhile Farage is campaigning on getting rid of net zero and the NHS and they love him.
The same media starting a culture war about heat pumps at the moment. Basically if you assume the media and the political right are owned by gas and oil interests, the politics since North Sea discoveries make a lot more sense. It's like they were trying to burn as much of it as inefficiently as possible rather than use it wisely for its owners, the people.
Rolling out more renewables faster will mean more reliance on gas.
I am not sure how people still don't realise this after ten years of doing this and energy prices going up non-stop.
I am not sure how people still don't realise this after ten years of doing this and energy prices going up non-stop.
We did not start to push for renwable energy to get prices lower, this is mainly a mitigation against previously unaccounted-for externalities (CO2 emissions and air pollution).
Complaining about transition costs, to me, is like complaining that industrial waste disposal was cheaper back when we just dumped everything into the next river.
Complaining about transition costs, to me, is like complaining that industrial waste disposal was cheaper back when we just dumped everything into the next river.
> industrial waste disposal was cheaper back when we just dumped everything into the next river.
This is still done. Thames Water.
This is still done. Thames Water.
Only needing gas when the renewable energy isn't available seems strictly better than needing gas 24/7
At this point, there's not that much other non-renewable generation on the UK grid, so expanding renewables will reduce the impact of gas on prices (though it'll likely be non-linear).
Gas complements renewables really well because gas can readily be tapped “on-demand” whilst renewables can only be tapped “on supply”.
It’s relatively easy to turn off gas when renewables are supplying energy to the grid at near zero cost marginal cost. But also easy to turn on gas when the renewables aren’t supplying energy, or when demand spikes in a manner uncorrelated to renewable generation.
Batteries are a more elegant solution long term, of course.
It’s relatively easy to turn off gas when renewables are supplying energy to the grid at near zero cost marginal cost. But also easy to turn on gas when the renewables aren’t supplying energy, or when demand spikes in a manner uncorrelated to renewable generation.
Batteries are a more elegant solution long term, of course.
Gas complements everything well. It's relatively cheap, easy to store power in large amounts and completely dispatchable. Nothing else can do all 3.
Batteries work well for short term day-to-day storage but they're impossibly expensive for seasonal storage which we will need a solution for for the last ~5-10% of decarbonization.
Probably the only way to fully decarbonize will eventually be to synthesize gas.
Batteries work well for short term day-to-day storage but they're impossibly expensive for seasonal storage which we will need a solution for for the last ~5-10% of decarbonization.
Probably the only way to fully decarbonize will eventually be to synthesize gas.
Gas can be used two ways: Gas in a conventional base-load steam turbine generator power plant is not easy to tap on demand. For peaking plants using gas turbine generators it is, but those are also less efficient.
The article mentions at the same site they're building a gas plant using the same tech as a large ship engines, which is an attempt to hit a sweet spot for future usage as they have high efficiency at part load.
Does the UK not have an option for hourly-pricing? That's usually where as a consumer you can have the most gains. In the summer, with solar panels, my energy bill is negative (in The Netherlands)
Some suppliers (e.g., Octopus Energy) offer half-hourly tariffs whose rates track the day-ahead wholesale market and are published daily. Prices usually fall when supply is abundant (e.g., windy/sunny periods)
Day ahead pricing: https://agileprices.co.uk/ National grid supply/demand and energy mix: https://grid.iamkate.com/
Day ahead pricing: https://agileprices.co.uk/ National grid supply/demand and energy mix: https://grid.iamkate.com/
Yes, but the hourly price is still largely set by gas, because it's still a minority of the time where renewables are supplying 100% of the grid.
The UK has a stupid system where the pricing for everything is determined by the most expensive thing in the mix:
>The UK’s electricity market operates using a system known as “marginal pricing”. This means that all of the power plants running in each half-hour period are paid the same price, set by the final generator that has to switch on to meet demand, which is known as the “marginal” unit.
i.e. if you have 99 units of solar but have 100 demand, 1 unit of gas plant fires up to fill it then all 100 units are compensated at the gas rate even if the wind was cheap.
>The UK’s electricity market operates using a system known as “marginal pricing”. This means that all of the power plants running in each half-hour period are paid the same price, set by the final generator that has to switch on to meet demand, which is known as the “marginal” unit.
i.e. if you have 99 units of solar but have 100 demand, 1 unit of gas plant fires up to fill it then all 100 units are compensated at the gas rate even if the wind was cheap.
You do realize that this is coupled with a 450MW gas power plant?
Gas is a really appealing backup option for both renewable and nuclear powered grids (at least in the absence of freely available hydropower).
But as installed power/capacity grows and batteries get cheaper, reliance on gas will hopefully decrease (and supply might get bolstered by renewable-powered synthgas within the next decades).
Gas is a really appealing backup option for both renewable and nuclear powered grids (at least in the absence of freely available hydropower).
But as installed power/capacity grows and batteries get cheaper, reliance on gas will hopefully decrease (and supply might get bolstered by renewable-powered synthgas within the next decades).
It's more about the negative effect that using gas has on the wholesale price of energy; electricity prices are determined by the most expensive source at that point in time. So we either need to get gas usage to 0, or change how that wholesale price is calculated in order to see a consumer benefit.
Its attached to the national grid, so surely it can also charge of the grid as needed too.
There was the largest one in Scotland a few months ago.
These are, dare I say it, the easy wins. Reusing the infrastructure from a demolished coal fired power station.
However I have yet to see Battery storage feature in the charts for UK energy usage yet.
I’m guessing that there are a lot of similar such sets that are being, or could be repurposed for battery storage.
These are, dare I say it, the easy wins. Reusing the infrastructure from a demolished coal fired power station.
However I have yet to see Battery storage feature in the charts for UK energy usage yet.
I’m guessing that there are a lot of similar such sets that are being, or could be repurposed for battery storage.
We had an interesting case here in the Netherlands, where at the moment the biggest problem for big battery operations is to get sufficient grid transmission capacity. One clever company bought the site of a bankrupt aluminium smelter for cents on the euro, purely because said smelter had a direct high capacity connection to the national high voltage grid. Getting the rest of the site and the machinery was just a bonus.
Yes, Aldel. I think that will pave the way for more moves like that. They have yet to install anything but the financing is there:
https://giga-storage.com/giga-storage-rondt-financiering-van...
https://giga-storage.com/giga-storage-rondt-financiering-van...
Lots of good stuff in here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-power-2030-...
> However I have yet to see Battery storage feature in the charts for UK energy usage yet.
There are also four pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations providing a further 2.8 GW of installed electrical generating capacity, and contributing up to 4,075 GWh of peak demand electricity annually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_the_United...
There are also four pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations providing a further 2.8 GW of installed electrical generating capacity, and contributing up to 4,075 GWh of peak demand electricity annually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_the_United...
On one of the sources of grid usage it has a placeholder for batteries but says:
> Several battery storage systems are in operation in Great Britain, but full reporting is not yet available: reports include discharging but not charging. As this would lead to double counting, with power being reported both when originally generated and when discharged from battery storage systems, battery storage data is not yet shown on this site.
> Several battery storage systems are in operation in Great Britain, but full reporting is not yet available: reports include discharging but not charging. As this would lead to double counting, with power being reported both when originally generated and when discharged from battery storage systems, battery storage data is not yet shown on this site.
Conceptually it is no different from pumped hydro storage. - for that they simply use negative numbers for pumping and positive for release.
I guess it's some technical problem with standardisation/tracking/reporting of the charging right now.
As/if Vehicle-to-Grid becomes more widespread, where you have highly distributed battery storage, it will be interesting to see if this will be publicly tracked.
Already domestic solar production is largely invisible ( as that mostly manifests in reduced demand ).
However I assume, in terms of managing the grid day to day, that such information is going to be important. ( eg if it's a largely cloudly day then that will be manifest as a rise in domestic demand ).
I guess it's some technical problem with standardisation/tracking/reporting of the charging right now.
As/if Vehicle-to-Grid becomes more widespread, where you have highly distributed battery storage, it will be interesting to see if this will be publicly tracked.
Already domestic solar production is largely invisible ( as that mostly manifests in reduced demand ).
However I assume, in terms of managing the grid day to day, that such information is going to be important. ( eg if it's a largely cloudly day then that will be manifest as a rise in domestic demand ).
Probably this one: https://www.zenobe.com/news-and-events/blackhillock-battery-...
Very much aimed at storing surplus from a couple of wind farms in the Moray Firth.
Presumably we'll see a lot more of these given the scale of some of the new windfarms...
Very much aimed at storing surplus from a couple of wind farms in the Moray Firth.
Presumably we'll see a lot more of these given the scale of some of the new windfarms...
That one claims to Europe's biggest, this one is claiming to be the UKs biggest which I guess means an even larger one went live in Europe somewhere in between.
> However I have yet to see Battery storage feature in the charts for UK energy usage yet.
Grid connected batteries are more about aiding grid stability, filling short term mismatches between loads and renewable generators, rather than raw capacity in terms of kWh.
Grid connected batteries are more about aiding grid stability, filling short term mismatches between loads and renewable generators, rather than raw capacity in terms of kWh.
It will be a long time before you will. That's just not the best application right now.
For comparison with a gravitational battery, Dinorwig pumped hydro in north Wales has a max power output of 1.7 GW and storage of 9.1 GWh.
About 10-15 percentage points less efficient because of losses pumping the water uphill though, and slower to react (seconds vs milliseconds) which will probably force it out of the fast frequency response market which batteries have rapidly saturated.
Batteries are not perfect either. The EIA published numbers that grid scale batteries were something like 81% roundtrip efficiency.
It's pretty much tailor made for batteries and flywheels. 2 seconds is not feasible for pumped hydro, though it still is impressively fast at less than 30 seconds. It is interesting how all of these technologies have their sweet spots.
I've been inside Dinorwig Pumped Hydro plant back when they were doing tours. They keep the turbines spinning with compressed air to avoid the delay of having to spin up that large metal mass of turbine when they open the water valves.
Yes, the problem is that the changeover moment between 'tons of water moving uphill' and 'tons of water moving downhill' is inviting a serious case of water hammer if not managed properly. Typically it takes about 30 seconds for things to first quiet down and then to allow the flow to reverse. The turbines themselves are already spun up during that interval, either with compressed air or by temporarily using the generators as unloaded motors so they're already synchronized to the grid. The valves are then opened gradually to the point that the generators start leading the phases and hence put power into the grid.
It's fascinating how mechanical all of this is.
When stuff goes wrong with dams they really go wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayano-Shushenskaya_power_stat...
Standing inside the turbine hall of one of these you can't help but think of the absolutely insane pressure from a water column typically 100's of meters high and half a meter or more across pushing down on a fairly simple valve. Engineering at its finest. To me the big dams are right up there with spaceflight.
It's fascinating how mechanical all of this is.
When stuff goes wrong with dams they really go wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayano-Shushenskaya_power_stat...
Standing inside the turbine hall of one of these you can't help but think of the absolutely insane pressure from a water column typically 100's of meters high and half a meter or more across pushing down on a fairly simple valve. Engineering at its finest. To me the big dams are right up there with spaceflight.
Cool so when will this translate into cheaper energy? Why am I paying $0.4 per kwh?
This project won't do anything (as you likely already know). The reason electricity is so expensive is because it's tied to gas prices, which is an entirely political decision.
Isn't the price tied to the marginal price, rather than the price of gas?
Even if they're typically the same, because CCGT is the best for on-demand generation, flattening the demand curve ought to slightly reduce that marginal cost.
I've seen the UK generation market attacked quite a lot lately, but to me it makes sense to price everything at the marginal cost, and doing so also helps encourage capital investment in generation that can have lower generation costs themselves, because the marginal cost is only slowly impacted rather than a boom and bust model.
Even if they're typically the same, because CCGT is the best for on-demand generation, flattening the demand curve ought to slightly reduce that marginal cost.
I've seen the UK generation market attacked quite a lot lately, but to me it makes sense to price everything at the marginal cost, and doing so also helps encourage capital investment in generation that can have lower generation costs themselves, because the marginal cost is only slowly impacted rather than a boom and bust model.
I agree, although I think one of the disadvantages in the UK is that the suppliers aren't paying the cost for their own volatility. A renewable supplier can add 1GW supply to the grid, but 1GW of natural gas generation capacity is still required.
Fixed costs and capital costs end up being shouldered by the consumer which ironically ends up pushing overall costs up.
Fixed costs and capital costs end up being shouldered by the consumer which ironically ends up pushing overall costs up.
This can be alleviated by the gas plant operator selling call options, effectively paying them for being reliable. The relevant keyword is "capacity markets".
Yeah we still need some more renewable capacity (and transmission) before gas usage can go to zero much of the time (which will need more batteries to deal with short term fluctuations). Right now we are using around 10% gas, which is a decent amount. Prices are still going negative at night some of the time, like last night.
Batteries will reduce the number of times gas sets the marginal price, so they will have a near immediate impact on that.
They'll also likely reduce the balancing costs by relieving congestion.
Probably too small to notice among all the other costs and changes, like deploying more renewables and starting to pay in advance for new nuclear.
They'll also likely reduce the balancing costs by relieving congestion.
Probably too small to notice among all the other costs and changes, like deploying more renewables and starting to pay in advance for new nuclear.
The current marginal market price is not the same as the current average price being paid for all electricity delivered. A lot is delivered via fixed price arrangements of one sort or another (CFDs, PPAs, etc) and then there are things like the Balancing Mechanism which is paid as bid, and capacity payments which are outside the marginal cost per kWh part of the system.
Gas prices are a political decision, too in Europe. For demand to reduce and for other sources to be more competitive prices have to be and remain high.
In the UK I believe it is policy for electricity prices to be high in general for thse reasons and to encourage lower usage.
In the UK I believe it is policy for electricity prices to be high in general for thse reasons and to encourage lower usage.
Retail energy prices are subsidised. It isn't policy to encourage lower usage, the government is paying billions to sustain retail consumption (and yes, this is whilst another part of the government is driving prices higher).
The issue in the UK is that we moved to renewables that can't produce energy at the margin, marginal prices are still driven by gas, and we simultaneously decided to shut down large amounts of non-renewable sources of energy to satisfy the ambitions of politicians.
Result? Highest energy prices in the world, most energy-intensive industry shutting down, and massive reliance on political direction/regulators by industry (the original comment is not right, since the mid-2010s energy companies have been directed day-to-day by the state, invest in this project, don't do this anymore, etc. Our policy is made by people who wish the world was a certain way, reality doesn't matter to them).
The issue in the UK is that we moved to renewables that can't produce energy at the margin, marginal prices are still driven by gas, and we simultaneously decided to shut down large amounts of non-renewable sources of energy to satisfy the ambitions of politicians.
Result? Highest energy prices in the world, most energy-intensive industry shutting down, and massive reliance on political direction/regulators by industry (the original comment is not right, since the mid-2010s energy companies have been directed day-to-day by the state, invest in this project, don't do this anymore, etc. Our policy is made by people who wish the world was a certain way, reality doesn't matter to them).
It is policy to encourage lower usage, like it is policy to keep prices up (both production and the grid are a shamble, not to mention climate commitments on top). Maybe the policy isn't publicly stated but actions speak louder than words. Of course this isn't popular so, at the same time, the governments takes measures to appear to try to keep prices lower. It is a political balancing act and subsidies are not incompatible with a policy of encouraging lower usage.
It's the same as they are doing on immigration: They say they want to lower it but the actual policy is to keep it high. People have understood that now, which explains in big part the Conservative wipe out. Labour is now on the same path.
It's the same as they are doing on immigration: They say they want to lower it but the actual policy is to keep it high. People have understood that now, which explains in big part the Conservative wipe out. Labour is now on the same path.
> Retail energy prices are subsidised.
Retail electricity is taxed in the UK.
Retail electricity is taxed in the UK.
But that’s OK isn’t it - if we tax it people should use it more efficiently
We are all just paypigs, after all.
Pretty much straight away actually.
In Australia prices were reduced by over $50 a year per person in the state on average once a similar battery went online. Similar policies and market there to this case too. Details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
I get that it's easy to be pessimistic but batteries like the above not only pay themselves off in 2years (From the article above, $46million profit in one year alone on a $90million install cost!) they also cut prices on the grid from day one.
Behind the scenes prices can fluctuate between <0 and >100x baseline. These types of installations immediately smooth out the costs. As long as you have competing wholesalers/providers the price reductions will come through pretty quickly based on similar cases.
In Australia prices were reduced by over $50 a year per person in the state on average once a similar battery went online. Similar policies and market there to this case too. Details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
I get that it's easy to be pessimistic but batteries like the above not only pay themselves off in 2years (From the article above, $46million profit in one year alone on a $90million install cost!) they also cut prices on the grid from day one.
Behind the scenes prices can fluctuate between <0 and >100x baseline. These types of installations immediately smooth out the costs. As long as you have competing wholesalers/providers the price reductions will come through pretty quickly based on similar cases.
One issue the U.K. has is a grid bottleneck but wiggle pricing across the grid. While excess power may be available in some places, there’s not enough interconnection to move it where it’s needed, so those with excess power (lots of wind etc) can’t benefit.
If the batteries are installed south of the interconnect, won't that help the problem?
Certainly, and these are small improvements that add up over time. People won’t appreciate them though, and will just listen k the “drill baby drill” coming from the tories and reform
I think a big reason for net-zero policies getting bad press, is that these kind of things are difficult to quantify. Energy is largely set by gas price, so having more non-gas assets on the grid probably means you do have cheaper energy (or, at least will have much cheaper energy in the future when gas ceases to dictate the energy price)
I guess what we can't do is step into the alternative world where there's less batteries and renewables, and complain about paying $0.6 per kwh.
I guess what we can't do is step into the alternative world where there's less batteries and renewables, and complain about paying $0.6 per kwh.
I'm paying £0.06 at the moment and I got paid to use electricity on the weekend thanks to the sun shining and wind blowing.
I don't know how you're accomplishing that.
The lowest mine goes is $0.3 1am-4am.
The lowest mine goes is $0.3 1am-4am.
Probably on a half-hourly tariff, e.g. Agile Octopus: https://www.octopriceuk.app/agile
So on the site itself it says
Agile prices can spike up to 100 p/kWh any time - although a typical household in Winter '22-'23 paid around 35 p/kWh average.
so that's even more than I'm paying. This seems to only make sense if you have some sort of intelligent battery system.
Agile prices can spike up to 100 p/kWh any time - although a typical household in Winter '22-'23 paid around 35 p/kWh average.
so that's even more than I'm paying. This seems to only make sense if you have some sort of intelligent battery system.
Over the last year of being on the Agile tariff, my average weighted price per kWh is £0.12 with a total saving of £506 over the year (drive an EV with an average of 4500kWh usage over the year).
I'm happy to shoulder a very 40p peaks every so often as it's very often cheaper overall.
I'm happy to shoulder a very 40p peaks every so often as it's very often cheaper overall.
You can make that tariff work without a battery, just that you need to be flexible when it comes to load shifting to maximise the savings. Moving consumption out of evening peaks would be enough over a course of a year.
I use that tariff, with no home battery or home solar or electric car. Saves about 1/3rd off my electricity bill. My only behaviour change has been to not run the washing machine 4pm-8pm.
It's great! I assume I'll get hit by a price spike at some point, hasn't happened for a couple of years so far.
Average unit cost for me yesterday was 4.35p/kWh.
It's great! I assume I'll get hit by a price spike at some point, hasn't happened for a couple of years so far.
Average unit cost for me yesterday was 4.35p/kWh.
The spikes in the last 2 years have happened for very short amounts of time. If renewables are working, you don't get a spike, and save loads on this tariff. The small amount of time they're not, you sometimes have to pay more, but not for long enough to matter. It's fundamentally more effective for everyone than the default of buying the insurance of fixed prices.
[deleted]
I call bullshit on this claim. Sure, you might be paying pennies a kWh, but likely only for a few hours at midnight, then it spikes to £0.50 during peak times.
Its a widely know, widely published tarrif. https://agileprices.co.uk/ - Make all the calls of whatever you please.
Once there's enough renewables and batteries that the UK is running off of near 100% renewables a decent fraction of the time, so the price is not being set by the gas turbines making up the margin.
[deleted]
If you are paying for electricity in dollars, this battery won't translate to cheaper energy for you. The battery is in Scotland.
Essex
Which, to be clear is: Not in Scotland, and, is in fact very far from Scotland.
In terms of countries, it's closer to France, or Belgium, or the Netherlands than to Scotland.
It is in the UK though, so, if your model of where "Scotland" is just means vaguely "the United Kingdom somewhere" and thus also includes London then yeah, close enough.
In terms of countries, it's closer to France, or Belgium, or the Netherlands than to Scotland.
It is in the UK though, so, if your model of where "Scotland" is just means vaguely "the United Kingdom somewhere" and thus also includes London then yeah, close enough.
I'm just translating for USD for an American audience.
Not really. The higher proportion of renewables a country has, the more expensive the energy. See the chart on this page:
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bjorn-lomborg-solar-wind-p...
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bjorn-lomborg-solar-wind-p...
Alternatively, the higher the cost of non-renewable energy in a country, the more attractive renewables are in that market.
If gas costs £1 a unit and solar is 90p, solar is profitable (especially if you get paid the gas price). If gas is 50p a unit, solar isn't going to be much of an investment.
If gas costs £1 a unit and solar is 90p, solar is profitable (especially if you get paid the gas price). If gas is 50p a unit, solar isn't going to be much of an investment.
Bjorn Lomborg is a hack propagandist and that is obviously bad science.
Just look at all the unnamed points in the lower left that are actually creating the trend he claims to have found.
If you graph developed nations the correlation reverses.
Just look at all the unnamed points in the lower left that are actually creating the trend he claims to have found.
If you graph developed nations the correlation reverses.
Personally, I'd take Bob Ward's analysis over Bjorn Lomborg's.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/more-misinforma...
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/more-misinforma...
I'd like to see them debate. All I know is my energy cost keeps going up in the UK, and we seem to have some of the most expensive energy in the world.
Have you tried switching to Agile Octopus tariff? My electricity cost has gone down 1/3rd since I did that. I also installed smart radiator thermostats, and knocked about 1/3rd off gas heating cost.
We do and I share your concerns.
As far as I can see pricing electricity on the marginal costs of gas has not been a good strategy. I think we should be charged the true cost of generation which is something like 8 times lower for renewables.
As far as I can see pricing electricity on the marginal costs of gas has not been a good strategy. I think we should be charged the true cost of generation which is something like 8 times lower for renewables.
The question is, if I'm going to be paid only "true cost of generation" why would I perform any generation? I also don't want to be paid only "true cost of labour" for my work, I'll take the wages you offered thanks, not my "true cost".
Sorry, maybe "market rate" would be better phrasing on my part.
I assume there's a mark up in there even if I didn't say it.
My point is that base cost of gas is so much higher than renewable energy that we are crippling our economy by forcing the renewable engergy market rate to be based on the market price of gas.
I assume there's a mark up in there even if I didn't say it.
My point is that base cost of gas is so much higher than renewable energy that we are crippling our economy by forcing the renewable engergy market rate to be based on the market price of gas.
What "renewable energy market" ? Are you mistaking "green" consumer electricity tariffs for actually renewable energy ? It's all the same electrons, and if you don't pay for the gas then those gas turbines don't run, which means there's no electricity.
What we have is a single electricity market because electricity consumers do not care how this electricity was made. Their motors spin, their lamps light, it's the same whether we burned peat (which is very, very bad for the environment) or strung together a lot of photovoltaics and made the sun's light into electricity directly.
What we have is a single electricity market because electricity consumers do not care how this electricity was made. Their motors spin, their lamps light, it's the same whether we burned peat (which is very, very bad for the environment) or strung together a lot of photovoltaics and made the sun's light into electricity directly.
Fires burn wherever firefighters show up, it's weird.
What is the chemistry and expected lifetime of the batterries?
They are saying this is for sustainable energy future but it looks like it's using natural gas (not sustainable) powered energy to charge up Lithium(?) batteries that will need to be replaced every n years (also not sustainable). Which part of this facility makes it more sustainable?
Why would they charge up with natural gas?
The UK often has excess wind energy, and for Tilbury in particular that problem is set to grow as National Grid are building out massive grid capacity from the North Sea wind farms through Tilsbury
The UK often has excess wind energy, and for Tilbury in particular that problem is set to grow as National Grid are building out massive grid capacity from the North Sea wind farms through Tilsbury
Generally LFP with cycles in the at least 5000 range.
They are pure arbiters of the market. Filling up when it makes sense and delivering when it makes sense. Which sometimes means buying expensive fossil gas powered electricity to sell it even higher priced later.
But what this means is that at that ”later” the peaking plant that originally has been used did not have to start and consumers enjoy cheaper electricity.
But what they do is extend the time renewables deliver. In for example California storage has reduced fossil gas usage by 40% in recent years.
They are pure arbiters of the market. Filling up when it makes sense and delivering when it makes sense. Which sometimes means buying expensive fossil gas powered electricity to sell it even higher priced later.
But what this means is that at that ”later” the peaking plant that originally has been used did not have to start and consumers enjoy cheaper electricity.
But what they do is extend the time renewables deliver. In for example California storage has reduced fossil gas usage by 40% in recent years.
A similar project in Australia used Tesla megapack batteries, which are lithium ion.
Another form of stored energy uses thermal. A large scale project to plug ~50,000 idle and abandoned oil wells in Kern County, California.
Probably worth noting that for states and utilities, consumer solar without batteries has become a liability and doesn't scale up. So effectively, all future consumer solar installations in California will likely have batteries. So there will be batteries at the consumer point, and centralized large scale battery farms like this one to address peak demand and prevent situations where blackouts may need to occur.
https://eepower.com/news/engineers-repurpose-oil-wells-as-so...
Another form of stored energy uses thermal. A large scale project to plug ~50,000 idle and abandoned oil wells in Kern County, California.
Probably worth noting that for states and utilities, consumer solar without batteries has become a liability and doesn't scale up. So effectively, all future consumer solar installations in California will likely have batteries. So there will be batteries at the consumer point, and centralized large scale battery farms like this one to address peak demand and prevent situations where blackouts may need to occur.
https://eepower.com/news/engineers-repurpose-oil-wells-as-so...
The title change rather obscures the actual event that occurred - that this facility is now connected to the grid...
> With a total capacity of 600MWh, Thurrock Storage is capable of powering up to 680,000 homes, and can help to balance supply and demand by soaking up surplus clean electricity and discharging it instantaneously when the grid needs it.
I mean, I get what they’re saying, but I’d certainly hope it is not capable of discharging 600MWh _instantaneously_!
I mean, I get what they’re saying, but I’d certainly hope it is not capable of discharging 600MWh _instantaneously_!
[deleted]
jeffbee(1)
https://www.ess-news.com/2024/11/05/financial-close-for-uk-p...
The battery storage was ~$200M. Pure prismatic lifepo cells are currently ~$60 per kWh in single digit quantities (would be $40M or 20% of total costs, which seems reasonable). The attached 450MW gas power plant cost ~$350M.
I find it rather remarkable how they aquired the contracts in early 2023 and the thing is already running.