The immediate cause appears to have been NESO’s overestimation of wind power on what was a pretty windy day:
As a result, NESO had to perform heroics in attempting to balance the grid. Kathryn notes:
The grid required 24,742 balancing actions across that day, May 29 — thousands more than usual. In essence, these actions are orders from the control room to ramp power stations up or down to keep supply and demand finely balanced.
The cause she says was primarily high wind-power output and poor forecasting from the system operator. She writes:
The level of discrepancy between what was forecast and what was generated was extremely difficult for the control room to manage that day, and would typically trigger substantial re-dispatching (sending new orders to power stations to change their running plans).
This re-dispatching worked both ways, up and down. For instance, we were importing from France over the IFA2 undersea cable, while exporting over its sister link, IFA1 at the same time. Similarly some CCGTs were told to reduce power, while others in other regions were asked to ramp up output.
There is always an element of balancing on the grid, but evidently it was tested almost to destruction that day.
Kathryn rightly focusses on the software implications faced by NESO. But I want to concentrate on the role of gas power that day, which was crucial in balancing the grid, not just on a national basis, but regionally too, a problem which is too often ignored.
The BMRS chart below shows how generation from CCGT fluctuated substantially from minute to minute, both to meet shortfalls but also to compensate for surges in wind output/drops in demand.
A very basic question is posed – what happens when all these CCGTs have been shut down?
While we are on the topic, the next chart looks at interconnector flows, which also had to be ramped up and down, notably in the early evening when wind power dropped away:
As Kathryn points out, Neso made multiple interconnector trades up to 2pm, all of which were exports, and all at negative prices, meaning Britain was paying other countries to take away its excess power. (The BMRS chart does not show outflows).
Put simply, we are not only highly dependent on gas power and interconnectors to provide electricity when renewables fall short, we also need them to export surplus power and balance the grid minute to minute.
55.90680 -4.53254 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Installed 1/1/1998
I have chosen to start this review with a wide area location map as a number of my Scots friends have commented that they doubted Bishopton residents would appreciate being described as living in Glasgow. Bishopton weather station is actually a very rural site over 12 miles from central Glasgow but this does not seem to stop the Met Office now amending the station name to solely “Glasgow” on many of its publications. I shall refer to it from now simply as Bishopton.
Bishopton is a regular “regional” star performer in the “Daily Extremes” stakes as per the example below. It is worth noting that many of its comparative neighbours are in totally different climatic regions – Salsburgh for example is alongside “Blackhill A” TV signal transmitter both a long way inland and at a very much higher elevation. Clicking on the link for “Glasgow” will take you to a summary for Bishopton.
The Bishopton site and its enclosure are quite unorthodox and warrants further detailed investigation, firstly the close up map.
Although there are cultivated fields opposite and either side of a wide band from the enclosure, there is never any indication of agricultural use close to the site. The vegetation is natural and typically variable with season. Shading is obviously a noted issue by the Met office who consequently mark this WMO (internationally reporting) site down to a lowly Class 4 being unrepresentative of the wider surrounding natural environment with an “additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 2 °C” The StreetView imagery is particularly good as the site is directly alongside the road.
This rural location with a notably very large enclosure is well equipped as its WMO status would suggest. The security level is very high indeed but is this solely to protect the valuable equipment? Unfortunately Met Office sites are frequently subject to criminal behaviour either for theft or just plain vandalism but this site is unusually secure. The signage on the impressive entrance gates gives a clue to the reason.
This is actually one of the secondary entrance roadways to Royal Ordnance Factory Bishopton which at one time was the largest munitions factory the MOD had and housed over 20,000 workers at its peak. Although now no longer at that scale a small test facility still remains with the rest of the land area due for mostly housing redevelopment. I personally have limited knowledge of such facilities and would welcome anyone’s knowledge contributions on this one. One person likely to be familiar with the site is Penny Endersby, the Met Office’s Chief Executive, though possibly not for meteorological reasons.
Whatever the site restrictions may or may not still be, the site seems to be subject to the typical ongoing 21st century Met Office neglect of basics. Road and field side vegetation is growing up and thickening out the perimeter fencing creating a walled-in effect, adding significant wind sheltering to the screen. In his detailed report Dr Eric Huxter noted that a Stevenson screen “is the least worst method of recording actual air temperature at 1.5m above the ground, ” This point is very well known to the Met Office who in their 20th century publications readily owned up to the problems stating:
“Free circulation of air throughout the screen allows the temperature of the inner wall adapt to ambient air changes, a design that is not immune from problems in extreme cases. Anomalies may arise when the wind is light and the temperature of the outer wall is markedly different from the air temperature.“
Those allegedly “extreme cases” of low wind speed have since been shown to not be so rare as was further highlighted by recent research by Reading University. Whether or not the Met office is responsible for this road/field side encroachment on its site here (and in many other sites such as Shobdon) is not relevant. They are certainly aware of the effect of wind breaks lowering wind speed and affecting readings (notably minima falling not so low) so should be taking responsible actions to ensure ongoing accuracy. It is not only Urban Heat island effects raising night time minima but also these increasingly prevalent wind break effects. That both these plus the noted PRT ultra short term sensitivity readily further the warming agenda is known but subtly seems to go “unnoticed”.
So how is Bishopton comparing in the temperature uplift/climate change charts over the last sixty years with other “comparative” local sites? As ever, checking the Met office produces the usual list of Zombies.
Despite only starting readings from 18th March 1999, Bishopton quotes 30 year rolling “climate averages” from 1st January 1961 through to 31st December 2020. These are then referenced to Paisley which closed down in 2014, Glasgow:Springburn which closed down in 1997, Helensburgh which closed in 2002 (having only opened in 1970 so both ante and post natal data creation) and Arrochymore similarly born 1970 to depart just 1992. The Met Office refuses to advise from what “input” stations data is actually used to produce this numerical output of a “peer reviewed” computer process so in the absence of any proof I personally call them fabricated and fictional numbers. Of course the Met Office could potentially easily prove me completely wrong – but that would require disclosure of which stations were used as “input” sources and they seem remarkably unwilling to do that. Does anyone really wonder why?
In conclusion Bishopton is a very well equipped station in what may once have been a reasonably good site though of a very non standard enclosure. Over the intervening years neglect of basic husbandry has allowed artificial effects of wind and shade sheltering to reduce the quality of data produced. Despite being a WMO reporting site it now fails to meet acceptable WMO climate reporting standards. The Met Office manages to construct very long term climate averages data from it whilst refusing to explain how that was done prior to its very existence. Its ongoing data is being compared to the undead Zombie stations that surround it with no explanation of their apparent life sustaining data input.
As a codicil, I know that these reports are being read at the Met Office and that many there do not disagree with many, even most, of my assertions. Those of them who agree with me also know they cannot openly disclose their agreement as that disclosure would likely jeopardise their career. A very sad state of affairs when solely verifying data and observations (not science) is so dangerous.
So much for coal being phased out. This may be the case in the UK and Western Europe, but in China, Russia and many third world countries they haven’t got the message as you can see in this article:
“I still don’t love talking about climate adaptation. I wish we didn’t have to…. I’m not admitting defeat. But I am realistic that we need to adapt too.” ( – Tim McPhie, below)
In the post-Net Zero CO2 world (yes, here we are), the new argument is every-little-bit counts “to avoid the worst effects of climate change.” Forget precision or cost/benefit analysis; it is a qualitative ‘deep ecology‘ argument. They know that the real math is daunting with negative CO2 emissions being required starting decades ago.
Brave talk about energy transformation will continue, but reality is creeping in. Consider this from Tim McPhie, a five-year climate communication expert at the European Commission. “I’ll admit it,”, he posted on social media, “I was never really comfortable talking about climate adaptation.”
I guess it always felt like accepting defeat. I used to think that talking about adapting meant accepting that we wouldn’t be able to stop or limit climate change. And it felt like giving a free pass to those who didn’t even want to try.
It was always easier to talk about climate mitigation. Governments and institutions setting new targets is easy to explain. Encouraging people to install solar panels, build wind turbines, use less energy, drive electric cars, make energy efficient products… There was always a story.
But change is change.
I don’t regret for a second communicating the urgency of reducing emissions. And I think that we made major progress. But we have already seen climate change hitting hard in the past few years.
The EU clearly needs to become more resilient to temperature changes, shifting precipitation patterns, changing seasons and more extreme weather events. This is essential for our health and wellbeing, for our security and for our prosperity….
It is a bummer argument, he acknowledges.
[Adaptation and resilience] … feels so defensive, focused on avoiding damage, preventing the worst kind of harms, minimising or avoiding losses. I think most people want to reach for something good in their lives, not hide from something bad. They want to seek out opportunities, not avoid risks.
Adaptation is not simply a means of minimising the damage inflicted by extreme weather, although that alone would justify the investment. Done properly, it can transform economies, as well as strengthen them against natural disasters … Companies that develop cutting-edge solutions for climate adaptation…will gain a competitive advantage in a world where demand for these products and services is only likely to grow.
McPhie ends:
I still don’t love talking about climate adaptation. I wish we didn’t have to. But we do. And at least there are some some more positive stories being told. We must still keep fighting to reduce emissions, and I’m not admitting defeat. But I am realistic that we need to adapt too.
Conclusion
The inconvenient truth is that the whole climate issue is self-defeating. Warmer increases the demand for air conditioning and mist machines during the hot months, increasing energy demand. Wind, solar, and battery industrialization come with their own environmental drawbacks, not to mention economic burden.
Adaptation itself requires a whole lot of cement and steel, which requires a lot of affordable, reliable energy, not wind and solar. And that means higher, incremental CO2 emissions.
Iowa Climate Science Education 