Comments on: Drax moves forward with Cruachan expansion FEED, reiterates need for subsidy

By: Nikki Jones

Nikki Jones — Mon, 15 Jul 2024 06:57:51 +0000

We need a full cost analysis – carbon and financial – of all new energy infrastructure. The government has been duped by biomass, CCS and nuclear – selective accountancy is the norm. As these ventures rely increasingly on the public purse, we need to see the full breakdown before government goes ahead. Drax has ‘form’ here – and we are all paying dearly…

By: James

James — Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:28:33 +0000

The expansion would more than double the installed capacity of this pumped storage scheme. The water storage capacity of the upper (Cruachan) reservoir will presumably not be increased. Therefore, the amount of power which the expanded scheme can supply as peaking power remains unchanged. More could be provided – but for a shorter duration.
Is the cost of having this option justifiable? A comprehensive justification of its purpose and cost, if made freely and readily accessible from the Internet, would be in the public interest.
The expansion may further reduce the grid’s need for dispatchable power (and system support) from elderly power stations which burn heavily subsidised imported wood. The rapid expansion of battery storage (including through vehicle batteries) and interconnectors which are being added to the grid will soon make such power stations redundant.
The largest of these – owned by Drax – is likely to close in about 2027 (when its subsidies expire). As voters are by now well aware, it is the UK’s #1 single source emitter of greenhouse gas.
Also, the grid must be decarbonised by 2030 – obliging the cessation of burning carbon, not merely fossil fuels, to generate electricity. The next General Election is due one year before 2030.
If it is apparent that Track 1 and 2 CCS clusters are unlikely to routinely be operating as proposed by 2030, then voters – already skeptical and suffering climate-related costs – will vote accordingly.

By: Jack Spruill

Jack Spruill — Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:12:30 +0000

Hydro pumped storage systems may have an important role in peak load balancing in some electricity generating systems. However, the reality is that all such pumped storage systems are net users of electricity. That is the fundamentals of Physics 101. The extent of such net energy consumption depends on the relative efficiency of the water pumps that lift the water and the relative efficiency of the hydro turbines that generate electricity when the water falls and flows through the turbines.

It is clear that we cannot rely on Drax to voluntarily disclose that fundamental fact of physics let alone provide any pro forma modeling of the amount of electricity that will be used per unit of electricity that is generated by its turbines.

Your May 22 article about a proposed pump storage system on Loch Ness by Glen Earrach Energy Limited does include the term “project efficiency.” https://www.newpower.info/2024/05/pumped-storage-plant-proposed-for-loch-ness/

I suggest that New Power require every company to address this net energy consumption / efficiency issue in any coverage you give to their proposed pump storage projects.