Holistic Network Design: National Grid Pathway to 2030

National Grid has taken a positive step forward by producing a Pathway to 2030 Holistic Network Design. We welcome its consideration for the entire network’s needs, though it will need to be updated with the new Celtic Sea areas, and increased offshore wind targets etc. Such plans are always in need of constant updating, so that’s not an issue.

Value for Money?

What is an issue is that it’s a fantastic waste of money and effort as it fails to consider connecting offshore wind through large-scale, long-duration, naturally-inertial storage.

Take East Yorkshire as an example. Without LDES, two major wind farms there will cause such overloads that three interconnectors need building, which help greatly with Scottish wind. But then, where these join, every major grid line southwards will require enormous reinforcement and new lines building.

Our estimations

This appears to target £54bn investment. This is triple our estimate of £1.25-1.5bn capital costs per GW of new offshore wind connected last year. That is, £1bn estimated by National Grid in NOA 2021, plus our guesstimate of the costs of connecting balancing and stability services. In addition, 10% of that is required annually to keep the system going.

We included these additional costs because we didn’t believe the NOA 2021 estimate included all the six new interconnectors and 15 new lines/circuits, nor re-conductoring, thermal upgrades etc. And the plan still involves lots of current limiting devices, e,g. built-in curtailment.

Including the other matters, we estimate that grid actions will cost £1.75bn capital expenditure per GW new wind. This doesn’t include £175m p.a. for operation, maintenance and financing, plus costs of sourcing balancing, stability and power quality services. This is a 43% increase on the already-astronomical Network Options Analysis 2021.

Our storage can save many billions of this grid reinforcement.

A Radical Redesign is Required

National Grid claims the design delivers “overall net consumer savings of approximately £5.5 billion compared to an optimised radial design.” But note the comparator: a radial design, not today’s costs which are a major net consumer cost.

All they’re saying is: it’s bad, but could have been even worse.

These costs are not optimal if, for example, there were sufficient large-scale long-duration naturally inertial storage on the grid. This would be especially beneficial between DC systems (solar, wind, HVDC links etc.) and the AC grid.

Short Termism

Another huge problem is that the report is to 2030. A phenomenal amount of re-work and wasted money will be required upgrading the grid again between 2030-2050. Seeking a single upgrade to meet 2050 needs would be better.

Yes, it gives consideration to some needs in that timescale, but no deep thought or analysis: they can’t get round their aversion to building ahead of demand, thinking falsely that doing so would “gold-plate” the grid.

Even if a little excess capacity is built, (a) the savings of doing it in one step will dwarf the excess, and (b) this capacity will be used sooner or later, as we’ve discovered with the so-called “gold-plated” pre-privatisation grid. Such false economies severely impede the energy transition, as Texas shows, analysis here. When grids were extended, renewables were built; when grids were saturated, projects were cancelled.

Looking at 2030 is looking only 7.5 years ahead. Their quoted lead times for grid connections are longer than that. And the better, more affordable, more reliable and more resilient solutions would involve lots of suitably located large-scale, long-duration, naturally inertial storage which has lead times similar to or longer than this period. So, while it’s good that they’re trying to get on with the work, it is really being done myopically.

A longer view would agree that much of the work outlined needs doing, but that some ought to be much larger in capacity (saving enormous re-work costs), and some would be better serviced by alternative solutions and routes.

Changes to industry codes, standards and licences

National Grid looks at a large number of changes to industry codes, standards and licenses. But these all relate to offshore networks, which a previous analysis has proven to be of little benefit. They are of no benefit during times of system stress when the benefits are most needed.

No consideration is given to connecting large-scale renewables and DC links to the grid through storage, nor to connecting to the grid both old and new through storage. This has the potential to eliminate all need for grid reinforcement of new infrastructure.

SUBSCRIBE FOR UPDATES

READ MORE

COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan
Blog

COP29 Key Outcomes

The 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded on 23rd November, 33 hours behind schedule. COP29 delivered noteworthy outcomes in some

Read More »

GET IN TOUCH