• Only EVs with CHAdeMO connectors, like the Nissan Leaf, can readily be used with V2G chargers.
• The more common CSS connector needs a new design specification to be able to export energy from the car.
• The V2G Trial run by OVO/Kaluza successfully implemented about 440 V2G sites before the money ran out.
• The final report on that Sciurus Trial by Cenex was brief and positive, but took none of the energy losses into account.
• EVs use LithiumMNC batteries, which suffer greater degradation per charge-cycle than do batteries with other lithium chemistries

It's a lot cheaper to build static storage batteries for incorporation into the home.
The Achilles heel is the high profit margins and high costs of installation for domestic storage.

NGET need to see us implementing storage.

Vehicle-to-grid or vehicle-to-load as mandatory for new EVs and chargers? :-) At the very least the more wealthy (those with EVs and their own charging point) should have to lead the storage rollout!

For domestic customers, I imagine the problem is co-ordinating or managing supply and demand at the local, neighbourhood level. Some thought has been given to this in the past and I believe that hooks are included in smart meter protocols to facilitate load management. There could be problems making use of these given a widespread public belief that they could be used to remotely terminate supplies.

Storing electricity lowers the need for greater grid capacity.
Less power must be carried during times of peak demand because it's already being held where it's needed.

So if we want to avoid paying higher bills for massive grid upgrades, then NGET need to see us implementing storage.

Posted by: @ianmk13

↑

Are you suggesting to National Grid that they should be targeting upgrading their local distribution infrastructure (at the expense of their National infrastructure, presumably).  It is local connections that seem to be the problem both for generators and consumers.

 

This depends on where you are in the country.

As we move towards an energy supply system which has thousands of generation sites spread across the regions, I believe that the grid topology should reflect this.

The National Grid Transmission network runs at 400kV (and a few sections at 275kV) but was designed around a few major power plants which existed in the 1930s. It's rather like a tree which picks up nutrients from relatively few main roots (routes!) and transports them to the leaves via a trunk.

Now in 2024 we have generation from vastly more sites, most of which are not far from the leaves.

The historical approach by National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) to increase capacity has been to build a thicker trunk.
I contend that strategy is

• too expensive (more than HS2)
• ineffective

If we consider the future grid as an organic structure, then its topology should develop in similar fashion to a biological model.

Generation and Demand sites are interlinked by a number of different pathways.

That organic grid is not only much cheaper, but also far more resilient to failure and malicious attack.

I have some homework to catch up on.

Since the Energy Bill hasn't yet passed through Parliament, there is bound to be a lot of uncertainty.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-security-bill ->https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2022/july-2022/lords-considers-energy-bill/ -> https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3311 given royal assent on 26 October 2023. Part 5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/52/part/5/enacted is about the ISOP.

Perhaps they are also unclear what the strategy is, who sets it and who is accountable for delivering it!

Since the Energy Bill hasn't yet passed through Parliament, there is bound to be a lot of uncertainty.

There will need to be a substantial number of people currently employed by NG-ESO or a Gas Network Company who will need to be acquired by ISOP.
But some of the ISOP objectives will require fresh input from new people.

Heat Pumps is one of those issues.
It's quite possible that DESNZ and Ofgem will require ISOP to actually deliver on the HP Installation targets for example.
The present strategy of allowing MCS to control/oversee those installations isn't working:

And removing/relaxing the rules isn't likely to help either, although it's getting some airtime on this other topic.

Don't we now have too many government-funded bodies undertaking energy-related analysis, publishing reports and recommending strategy?

Too many organisations operating in a power vacuum? It is easy to fund some research to try and get a seat at a bigger table. Perhaps they are also unclear what the strategy is, who sets it and who is accountable for delivering it! What influence does the CCC have on the Secretary of State for Net Zero?

I wonder why Ofgem wants the Government's Energy Bill to set up the ISOP as a separate entity to the Climate Change Committee?
What happens if their strategies diverge?

Will the ISOP create net zero strategies, or just perform planning and operation? What are the inputs to planning?

One thing of interest to me is that electricity and gas "operations" (and planning) would be joined together in one organisation. For instance, how will the rollout of domestic heat pumps be reflected within the internal politics? Or how will gas supply security (through drilling in UK waters) be balanced with the desire to reduce carbon emissions?

Such a way of operation would require a clear and stable multi-election-cycle decarbonisation strategy within which companies and individuals operate. Who sets the strategy? What form does the strategy take?

Does the 6th Carbon Budget satisfy what you're after?

I wonder why Ofgem wants the Government's Energy Bill to set up the ISOP as a separate entity to the Climate Change Committee?
What happens if their strategies diverge?

Don't we now have too many government-funded bodies undertaking energy-related analysis, publishing reports and recommending strategy?

• Dept of Energy Security & Net Zero
• Climate Change Committee
• Independent System Operator and Planner
• Ofgem
• Energy Catapult
• Centre for Sustainable Energy
• REGEN
• Cornwall Insight

I suppose the main difference with ISOP is that they will actually run the networks on a daily basis, just as National Grid ESO currently does with electricity.

That means they own a screwdriver.