This group is the default community for every Energy Central registered member. We discuss and share a variety of topics related to the global power industry. 

Richard Brooks's picture
Co-Founder and Lead Software Engineer Reliable Energy Analytics LLC

Inventor of patent pending (16/933161) technology: METHODS FOR VERIFICATION OF SOFTWARE OBJECT AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY and the Software Assurance Guardian™ (SAG ™) Point Man™ (SAG-PM™)...

  • Member since 2018
  • 1,250 items added with 502,060 views
  • Aug 14, 2019
  • 780 views

A capacity exchange that incentivizes investments in grid services that are aimed at ensuring system reliability as a top priority, followed closely by a means to give consumers the ability to secure their own capacity/fuel type would seem to be a reasonable response to the London blackout, as opposed to a "get more capacity" strategy. The AOCE concept is one example of an exchange that implements a "priority services hierarchy" to secure specific types of supply services for reliability and enables consumers to secure green power, using a lowest cost objective function.  The following quote from the article articulates this need more precisely:

"To improve the power system’s ability to cope with plant failures, the government should change its capacity market, a backup system, by guaranteeing prices for storage assets for 10 to 12 years to help attract institution investors, according to Peter Dickson, a partner at Glennmont Partners, a clean energy investment firm in London. "

Richard Brooks's picture
Thank Richard for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Aug 14, 2019

A capacity exchange that incentivizes investments in grid services that are aimed at ensuring system reliability as a top priority, followed closely by a means to give consumers the ability to secure their own capacity/fuel type would seem to be a reasonable response to the London blackout, as opposed to a "get more capacity" strategy.

The 'get more capacity' strategy also seems pretty short-sighted-- surely those in charge realize that energy demand will keep rising, right? Of course capacity will need to be built out to match growing populations and economies, but the type of grid-level tools being built out that you mention will make that growth a whole heck of a lot more manageable in the long run

Richard Brooks's picture
Richard Brooks on Aug 14, 2019

Excellent point Matt. The problem is that current capacity markets, such as in ISO New England, treat all capacity equally, acquiring only the lowest cost "capacity", in whatever form it takes. This "any capacity will do" mentality must change in order to prevent the type of mishaps that happened in London. Grid Services, not "plain old capacity" are what's needed to ensure reliability throughout the energy transition.

Richard Brooks's picture
Richard Brooks on Aug 17, 2019

Simon Gallagher provides us with an excellent analysis, and some great questions, regarding the London Blackout. I found this worthwhile:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/last-weeks-power-cuts-what-happened-simon-gallagher

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »