Windfarms

[nigelfr]

carbonjunkie said:

Lordbenny said:

Streetrod said:

Nuclear is the future

I though nuclear fusion or fision or whatever it is was going to solve the worlds energy problems within the next 50 years or that's what I was lead to believe after watching that Horizon programme the other day. Something to do with atoms and bringing 2 negative particles together using lazers and stuff! I didn't do O level physics!

I watched that, very interesting programme. The key point it brought home to me is that remewables are just pissing in the wind (so to speak). the sheer quantity required is vast if is to meet even a tiny proportion of our needs.

Nuclear fusion it really has to be. cheap, clean, limitless energy. why the hell aren't we pumping billions upon billions into this? It does work, we can make it work and it will solve so many problems we are crazy to ignore it.

It really is ridiculous that so little is spent on fusion research: it's almost enough to make you believe in conspiracy theories.

[nigelfr]

pgtips said:

nigelfr said:

pgtips said:

There is some reserach (can I use that word here ) I linked to earlier in the thread.

Was it this one...

pgtips said:

There is a good paper on it - one for the staticians possibly: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sin...

I think the way you introduced it may have put some people off looking at it.

Only put off the faint hearted! It's good stuff though.

Yeah, I think you gave it a bit of undeserved bad press, it is quite an easy read really. Have you got anything more recent on the economics?

[pgtips]

nigelfr said:

pgtips said:

nigelfr said:

pgtips said:

There is some reserach (can I use that word here ) I linked to earlier in the thread.

Was it this one...

pgtips said:

There is a good paper on it - one for the staticians possibly: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sin...

I think the way you introduced it may have put some people off looking at it.

Only put off the faint hearted! It's good stuff though.

Yeah, I think you gave it a bit of undeserved bad press, it is quite an easy read really. Have you got anything more recent on the economics?

I quoted these in another thread recently so excuse the cut and paste "Approx installation costs (buy the land / equipment / connection charges, etc): nuclear (£2200 /kW), gas fired CCGT (£650 /kW), new coal (£1400 /kW), onshore wind (£1300 /kW), offshore wind (£3,000 /kW). There is a lot more uncertainty on actual costs of offshore wind and nuclear than the other technologies.

Levelised long run marginal costs (i.e. how much you need to earn per MWh for the investor to earn a reaosnable rate of return, assuming a 20 year economic life and reasonable estimates for today's fuel and carbon costs: nuclear (£55 /MWh), gas fired CCGT (£65/MWh), new coal (£80 /MWh), onshore wind (£80 /MWh), offshore wind (£120 /MWh). The wind costs exclude the ROC subsidy so they are pure costs."

[turbobloke]

From the numbers it looks like there are no decommissioning costs in there, nor grid connection costs - for new wind power. Can you clarify pgtips?

[fluffnik]

pgtips said:

RobCrezz said:

I dont see whats wrong with Nuclear power.

Some nuclear power is great. Too much nuclear (for a market with limited opportunities to export in the same way France does) can cause problems: the system becomes too inflexible to meet fluctuataions in demand.

Pump storage and H2 production - job jobbed...

[minipower]

pgtips said:

nigelfr said:

pgtips said:

There is some reserach (can I use that word here ) I linked to earlier in the thread.

Was it this one...

pgtips said:

There is a good paper on it - one for the staticians possibly: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sin...

I think the way you introduced it may have put some people off looking at it.

Only put off the faint hearted! It's good stuff though.

Bloody hell, I spend ages going through books, lecture slides and crap websites to research wind turbines for my coursework, whilst neglecting pistonheads, only to find you stick up a good overall report that would have saved me no end of time. Its been handed in as well now.

[Skodaku]

minipower said:

pgtips said:

nigelfr said:

pgtips said:

There is some reserach (can I use that word here ) I linked to earlier in the thread.

Was it this one...

pgtips said:

There is a good paper on it - one for the staticians possibly: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sin...

I think the way you introduced it may have put some people off looking at it.

Only put off the faint hearted! It's good stuff though.

Bloody hell, I spend ages going through books, lecture slides and crap websites to research wind turbines for my coursework, whilst neglecting pistonheads, only to find you stick up a good overall report that would have saved me no end of time. Its been handed in as well now.

Ah, but you are now in a position to defend your report and refer back to your sources, if required to. Far better than just saying; "I got it off PH so it must be correct", don't you think ? Much more satisfying as well. Well done.

[minipower]

Skodaku said:

minipower said:

pgtips said:

nigelfr said:

pgtips said:

There is some reserach (can I use that word here ) I linked to earlier in the thread.

Was it this one...

pgtips said:

There is a good paper on it - one for the staticians possibly: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sin...

I think the way you introduced it may have put some people off looking at it.

Only put off the faint hearted! It's good stuff though.

Bloody hell, I spend ages going through books, lecture slides and crap websites to research wind turbines for my coursework, whilst neglecting pistonheads, only to find you stick up a good overall report that would have saved me no end of time. Its been handed in as well now.

Ah, but you are now in a position to defend your report and refer back to your sources, if required to. Far better than just saying; "I got it off PH so it must be correct", don't you think ? Much more satisfying as well. Well done.

Cheers, yes I have to say very satisfying, plus I do know more about it now.
Mentioning PH round these parts would have me hung, drawn and stuffed full of lentils, so that would certainly be a no no, even if I was referring to it in normal conversation.

Edited by minipower on Thursday 26th March 19:46

[turbobloke]

minipower said:

Mentioning PH round these parts would have me hung, drawn and stuffed full of lentils, so that would certainly be a no no, even if I was referring to it in normal conversation. : (

Ah, the edifying whiff of tolerance and open debate in green circles, you have to love it

[minipower]

turbobloke said:

minipower said:

Mentioning PH round these parts would have me hung, drawn and stuffed full of lentils, so that would certainly be a no no, even if I was referring to it in normal conversation. : (

Ah, the edifying whiff of tolerance and open debate in green circles, you have to love it

I wish it was just green circles. Our student motto seems to be go green or go home (in a suitable environmentally friendly, wind powered, water fuelled, potato tyred, recycled, IPCC backed transporting device).

[anonymous-user]

mybrainhurts said:

escargot said:

Ahhh.

I'm involved in the renewable energy industry too. How you finding the market at the moment?

I throw a shoe at each of you...

Good news here....

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind...

you shine out like a shaft of gold while all around is black

[pgtips]

turbobloke said:

From the numbers it looks like there are no decommissioning costs in there, nor grid connection costs - for new wind power. Can you clarify pgtips?

You're good! Yep - no decom costs for nuclear (or indeed any technology). A lazy way is to say the scrap value equals decom value (obviously except nuclear). Estimate around £500 /kW for nuc decom (above those costs) but discounted so far into the future they don;t really impact the levelised costs. Plus deep within the Govt nuc consultation doc from last year, the Gov't committed to underwriting these if they rose really high. (One of several risk mitigants to the potential nuc developers without providing subsidy)

Connection costs..... now there's a can of worms. Yes - the direct connection costs on a per kW basis are in. No - the wider system costs reflecting need for grid reinforcement are not. These can't be targetted on a £/kW basis. The point then is the full externality cost of connecting wind not reflected in the £/kW numbers quoted.

[pgtips]

minipower said:

pgtips said:

nigelfr said:

pgtips said:

There is some reserach (can I use that word here ) I linked to earlier in the thread.

Was it this one...

pgtips said:

There is a good paper on it - one for the staticians possibly: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sin...

I think the way you introduced it may have put some people off looking at it.

Only put off the faint hearted! It's good stuff though.

Bloody hell, I spend ages going through books, lecture slides and crap websites to research wind turbines for my coursework, whilst neglecting pistonheads, only to find you stick up a good overall report that would have saved me no end of time. Its been handed in as well now.

Hope it was useful reading anyway. Good luck with the coursework

(BTW - I didn't write it, so don't go quoting some bloke of PH said.... )

[elster]

pgtips said:

I quoted these in another thread recently so excuse the cut and paste "Approx installation costs (buy the land / equipment / connection charges, etc): nuclear (£2200 /kW), gas fired CCGT (£650 /kW), new coal (£1400 /kW), onshore wind (£1300 /kW), offshore wind (£3,000 /kW). There is a lot more uncertainty on actual costs of offshore wind and nuclear than the other technologies.

Levelised long run marginal costs (i.e. how much you need to earn per MWh for the investor to earn a reaosnable rate of return, assuming a 20 year economic life and reasonable estimates for today's fuel and carbon costs: nuclear (£55 /MWh), gas fired CCGT (£65/MWh), new coal (£80 /MWh), onshore wind (£80 /MWh), offshore wind (£120 /MWh). The wind costs exclude the ROC subsidy so they are pure costs."

I think your figures might be slightly out. As I think those will be based on Max power output. The times when wind will run at max is slim to none.

There was an article in IET other week about what happens when the wind runs out and you are at peak electricity use (World Cup or whatever such event creates mass electricity usage). Was quite interesting.

As for the investment in research into other such Power generation methods, how about what is happening next to Eggborough power station?

[TimJMS]

turbobloke said:

TimJMS said:

15KW each I believe.

When it's calm?

I'm waiting for batteries to come down in price

[LongQ]

elster said:

There was an article in IET other week about what happens when the wind runs out and you are at peak electricity use (World Cup or whatever such event creates mass electricity usage). Was quite interesting.

If you check the ROC claims (assuming that the Windmill operators are not sandbagging on output for any reasons - I can't think why they would) few of the installations currently in existence exceed 40% of rated output at any time. A handful of mostly offshore sites seemed to manage around 50% once or twice in the last 2 years. (One smallish site managed 110% but I assume this was an error or an obvious case of fraud! )

Certain months tend to have noticably low output year after year, suggesting a wind availability pattern that is either too low or too high. February is a noticably poor output month even when analysed at an average daily rate rather than monthly capacity.

Good job February is not a cold time of the year and demand is low. Well, OK not right now it isn't loa and it isn't warm but it will once this pesky hiatus in the global warming meme reverses just after the Olympics in 2012.

[mybrainhurts]

excel789 said:

mybrainhurts said:

escargot said:

Ahhh.

I'm involved in the renewable energy industry too. How you finding the market at the moment?

I throw a shoe at each of you...

Good news here....

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind...

you shine out like a shaft of gold while all around is black

He said black...

[Lordbenny]

The future of energy!

http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/article.aspx?cp-docume...

[turbobloke]

I'd rather have a localised permanent energy supply using static electricity generated by the friction from nylon stockings of superheated babes. Working shifts.