@ChrisMayLA6 Being a broken record, I’ll point out again that this is bullshit - there’s no lack of transmission capacity, only a lack of spare capacity at peak times. Which, with storage at both ends of the major bottlenecks, would stop being a problem.
You don’t have to be a top economist to work out that £50m/day would quickly pay to build some storage.
But that might make gas companies sad.
@BashStKid @ChrisMayLA6
do you have a pointer to any data as to how the load varies - as in what things are consuming the power and when, cause maybe there is also a means to level the load somewhat?
@hitsuyonai @ChrisMayLA6 Well, that’s kind of the point. There are are a small number of serious bottlenecks in the UK transmission system, but they all have lots of spare capacity at night.
Capturing peak surplus power, sending it south overnight to storage, then using it at peak times next day, is pretty simple.
Note that the gas system would never work if it didn’t have a load of storage built into the system. Successful network gen systems always need storage for levelling.
@BashStKid @ChrisMayLA6
I probably didn't express my myself very well: Seeking to know when and for what purpose power is consumed. eg when a washing machine runs. I have zero idea of the significance of any of these things but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup , I think CERN used to have a contract with EDF where they would get relatively cheap electricity with the proviso that EDF could tell them at 24hrs notice for a certain number of days a year - sorry no leccy for you tomorrow.
@hitsuyonai @ChrisMayLA6 The domestic market, and its variations over time, is fairly well understood, & there are reasonable estimates for future increases in demand for replacing gas & EVs.
Most of Europe can access variable domestic tariffs that offer cheap or negatively priced electricity during oversupply to level out demand over the day. (1/3)
High users are different, there’s usually a load-shedding contract where there are benefits to use, but you can be kicked off in favour of hospitals etc. (2/3)
The real problem has been a decade plus of allowing always-on datacentres to be built in urban areas, soaking up all the spare domestic capacity, insisting they are never ever kicked off, and having a private company with US shareholders holding a monopoly over the whole national transmission grid. Conservatives, always helping themselves and shitting on everyone else. (3/3)
So, this is an interesting issue; if there is a lack of spare capacity at peak times there is a lack of capacity as the system is currently configured.... systems that cannot cope with surges as they have been stripped down to lean capacity are failing all over society (just look at the NHS & beds, for instance)...
but as you rightly suggest storage *is* one (good) way out of this - but, the story isn't so much bullshit as agenda maintenance.... but I *do* take you overall point!
@ChrisMayLA6 I’d still argue it’s a bit bullshit 🐂
The grid has always been an instantaneous transmission system. The traditional way for it to cope with surges was for max line capacity to exceed the ‘everyone puts the kettle on during a royal wedding’ freak peak demand. There was also a tacit reliance on multiple coal, oil, gas generators being inside the network with short paths, keeping nuclear largely round the edge. (1/7)
This is a hugely inefficient design, where most of the system is mostly empty, but expensively overdesigned for rare peaks.
As a comparison, the gas system is quite different, as it would be insanely expensive to put in really fat pipes that could shoot gas at demand rates across the country. So there’s lots of gas storage across the whole network, just as there used to be distributed oil and coal storage. (2/7)
Now, the modern electrical system is being mostly fed from the edges, by generators that can’t run continuously. That causes two problems:
(a) general demand matching, where what’s generated locally/regionally doesn’t equal the regional demand, and (b) transmission bottlenecks, where the old CEGB grid design simply can’t transmit all the power being generated in Scotland or the East down to southern England, and the gas generators charge insane rates and push everyone’s bills up. (3/7)
Both those can *only* be solved by storage.
(a) needs storage to timeshift regional generation to match regional demand, and to build up a regional buffer to cover lower generation spots. This would also allow simple zonal pricing, and cut most folks’ bills by 60%+. (4/7)
(b), transmission bottlenecks that don’t exist except at peak times, need storage to send the power at night during the lowest demand into storage at the other end. This is even shorter storage, a buffer for less than a day. (5/7)
This then uses the long-distance transmission paths at a reasonably high utilisation, say 89-90% all the time, which is much better value for money than building lots more fat transmission that will only be used at 20-50% capacity. Sure, some paths need yet more future capacity, but we could stop absurd £50m/day stoppage payments to renewables, and more importantly stop almost all gas generation, cutting carbon and hugely reducing domestic bills. (6/7)
And that’s why I call bullshit on treating more transmission as the only solution, when the real solution with extra benefits is storage. (7/7)
Fair enough; the detailed argument is convincing.... thanks for taking the time to lay it out
Oct 16, 2026, 6:02 AM@BashStKid Great explanation indeed.
I tend to think that there are two issues at play: one is space (moving electricity from where it's produced to when it's used) and one is time (having electricity available when it's needed).
Increasing transmission capacity only solves for space. Storage seems like it only solves for time, but, since modern storage can be located pretty much wherever we want (unlike e.g. pumped storage), storage can *also* solve for space.
(1/2)
Oct 16, 2026, 6:18 AMIt then becomes a problem of optimization. If we only allow ourselves to balance the location / controllability of generation and the sizing of transmission, we can't optimize nearly as much as if we add storage to the mix.
The beauty of storage is that it can solve for space in a very flexible way. There's no strict distinction between supply-side storage and demand-side storage, just fill any storage whenever you can, optimize with forecasts.
(2/2)
@ChrisMayLA6 I should be the first to say there are big simplifications, being a toot and not a thesis.
The underlying problem is too much traditional thinking, all based on electrical engineering maths from the 1920s, all focused on high-voltage ac transmission and centralised generation.
We need some bright spark ⚡️ to come up with stable network equations for a fully distributed transient system. (sadly not a Millennium Prize problem).
Oct 16, 2026, 7:08 AM@BashStKid Having no knowledge here 😀, is storage always batteries, or are there better ways? (Pumping water uphill, or storing pressurised air, for later release?) Thanks 👍
@ToshInMacc @BashStKid yes, pumped storage of water is a thing in the UK
https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/analysis/uk-pumped-storage-projects-surge-after-40-year-gap/
@ToshInMacc Storage can be anything you like, the only question is how long it takes to ramp up, and the net efficiency.
Again, it would be nice to break away from massive centralised options towards a resilient redundant distributed system. (I often bang on about a gravity battery in every ex-mine, supplemented by a modest heat engine or thermocouple driven by the permanent high temps down below. )
@BashStKid Yes, I’d argue that extra transmission capacity is a legacy from when BESS was less practical (only a few years ago!)
Also I think that extra capacity to transmit from Scotland further South is as much about being able to export it to mainland Europe as it is to power England. Norway doesn’t need it, but if we can oversupply and get it to the Humber more effectively, then it can go to Denmark, Germany.
@teamonkey At which point folks in Scotland should be asking who’s profiting from those exports, folks in Scotland, or some private equity group in Monaco?
@BashStKid People in Scotland should already be asking why their power bills are paying for gas turn-up in the South of England.
@BashStKid @ChrisMayLA6 also note the headline-grabbing "£50M/day payments" mostly go to thermal generators (gas and biomass), not to renewables.
@robhawkes has a website that will tell you the split between the two.
@sheddi @ChrisMayLA6 @robhawkes Yes, that’s a very good website.
I’d also recommend Kate Morley’s https://grid.iamkate.com/
@sheddi Classifying biomass as non-renewable is a bit wild.
@2legged @BashStKid @robhawkes @ChrisMayLA6
A lot of the UK biomass is Canadian forests that have been chipped and pelleted then shipped across the Atlantic to the UK.
While the forest itself might technically be renewable if you wait long enough, the processing and transport isn't.
@sheddi An old pal grows ~8 acres of short-cycle coppiced willow to heat his holiday cottages. His 2-year cycle is not an indefinite wait.
He hasn't eliminated diesel from the harvesting, but no longer burns it for heat. His total energy usage has shifted from 100% fossil to ~99% renewable.
You excluded all #biomass from the renewable category, which is false.
Have you calculated the fossil-vs-renewable energy mix of the imported bio fuel you lament?
@2legged @sheddi @robhawkes @ChrisMayLA6 Folks, I think we’re all pulling in the same direction here.
Sheddi, if your key point is that Drax is an abomination, and a lot of EU biomass is not far behind, I’d agree with you.
Claire, your point boils down to any energy source has to pass some kind of carbon and sustainability audit, which your friend’s does, but most large scale biomass schemes don’t.
I’d add that if Ireland would adopt such auditing, you could stop LNG imports as well.
Yes, @BashStKid, audit is needed. But even the massively-flawed Drax biomass is better than its former 100% fossil fuel.
Biomass isn't simple like solar or gas: it needs case-by-case evaluation, not blanket condemnation or unqualified praise. In general, I think biomass is best when it's small-scale.
PS I agree, @BashStKid. Ireland's LNG imports are a disgrace.
But the whole energy show in Ireland has been a disgrace since the #ESB's wonderful hydro schemes were completed in the 1950s, and we later dashed to fossil fuel.
#Moneypoint was a crime, a cynical machine to dump coal emissions on Britain & Europe.
The 21st-century dash to wind energy was disgracefully handed to private capital. And now hugging #data centres are using 27% of Irish leccy 😡
@2legged @sheddi @robhawkes @ChrisMayLA6 You’ve probably seen plenty of videos of Ardnacrusha. Shame we can’t drown the *** datacentres for a new dam.
On a positive note, if somebody is motivated to develop an environmentally safe tidal energy scheme, they may well be in Ireland. Hurry up, and start leading the world!
@BashStKid My late father was a civil engineer whose early career was in ESB power station design. We were raised on stories of hydro, and #Ardnacrusha was our temple. The holy of holies.
@BashStKid @ChrisMayLA6 I’ve been wondering about this. How we can basically smooth demand to the extent that we’re pretty much always at baseload.
If home/area batteries are all bidirectional we’re only ever topping up, and most of that can be when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining.
@daycoder @ChrisMayLA6 The critical point to achieving that is breaking the grid monopoly on sales, so that (for example) I could sell solar to my neighbours, and the wind turbine further up the valley could sell me electricity, getting everyone a low renewable price.
Unlike now, where we all have to sell to the grid, and the grid decides what it’s going to charge us per kWh. And if any of those kWh are from gas, we all pay ~10x the renewable price, if there’s any nuclear, maybe 5x as much.
Oct 16, 2026, 8:30 PM@BashStKid @ChrisMayLA6 ... it's easy to be glib about storage of electrons 🤷