The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[turbobloke]

MYOB said:

rolando said:

Now explain why the rush to build onshore wind farms has ended. I take it that the developers have come to the conclusion that, at any scale, it is no longer worth the investment, thank God.

It was a political decision.

The political decision was to stop onshore wind operators from further subsidy farming at taxpayer expense, not least after seeing actual output data as opposed to wildly optimistic plated capacity made-up numbers.

Massive waste of taxes. The decision not to build equally large numbers of onshore windymills as happened previously recognises the true position of pointless and costly onshore wind when taxpayer largesse is lacking and green blob pockets aren't being lined in the manner to which operators have become accustomed.

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

The political decision was to stop onshore wind operators from further subsidy farming at taxpayer expense, not least after seeing actual output data as opposed to wildly optimistic plated capacity made-up numbers.

Massive waste of taxes. The decision not to build equally large numbers of onshore windymills as happened previously recognises the true position of pointless and costly onshore wind when taxpayer largesse is lacking and green blob pockets aren't being lined in the manner to which operators have become accustomed.

Unsurprisingly that is complete bullst, unsubstantiated, incorrect and nothing but emotional bks spouted by Turbobloke, and as typical without a thread of truth behind the Daily Wail-esque whinging.
A bullst bingofest of all of the drivel you spout on the so-called 'Climate Change Political thread'
please for everyones sake - go back and stay on that one.

No, Paddy, yours is the incorrect bullst — unless I've missed the hidden part of your post which substantiates your rant.

[LongQ]

alangla said:

It occurred to me that it's been pretty cold & still the last few days, so I had a look at Gridwatch to see how the grid was holding up. I was a bit surprised - Wind is still putting out 8.2GW (though falling over the last few mins), Nuclear is down to 6.2GW and the coal stations seem to be running flat out at 9.5GW. Demand is 48.8GW - this is at 1710 today.

Had a quick look at the Met Office wind map (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/wind-map/ ) which suggested that windspeeds are fairly low at the moment & will remain low into next week. It's apparently going to warm up early next week, so we might not get the cold & no wind demonstration that I'd hoped to see. The National Grid winter outlook suggests that the year's max demand will probably be next week or the week after as well.

Does anyone know of a way to see if the grid are sending out capacity warnings to their big customers?

Here's the 52 week forecast page at bmreports.

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=demand/2-52-week...


That suggests, as has been the case for a while, that there is a nominal 6 or 7k W margin of generation over demand at worst case. However if nothing had changed much that forecast includes numbers for predicted output from wind that, hour by hour, might not be available on the day.. The amount of real generation capacity is somewhat equal to the margin predicted.So high demand on a cold windless day could be tight.

Any untoward reduction of output could make it very tight.

One or more nuclear units have some planned downtime/unavailability at the moment - hence the lower than normal output for this time of year.

As far as I can tell there have been no warnings issued for a while. Presumably the disappearance of heavy industry is offsetting the appearance of a larger population.

[MYOB]

turbobloke said:

The political decision was to stop onshore wind operators from further subsidy farming at taxpayer expense, not least after seeing actual output data as opposed to wildly optimistic plated capacity made-up numbers.

Massive waste of taxes. The decision not to build equally large numbers of onshore windymills as happened previously recognises the true position of pointless and costly onshore wind when taxpayer largesse is lacking and green blob pockets aren't being lined in the manner to which operators have become accustomed.

Given I was employed with govt at the time the decision was made, I agree with paddymurphy that this is pure drivel.

It was a political decision made in the interests of gaining extra voters.

[turbobloke]

MYOB said:

turbobloke said:

The political decision was to stop onshore wind operators from further subsidy farming at taxpayer expense, not least after seeing actual output data as opposed to wildly optimistic plated capacity made-up numbers.

Massive waste of taxes. The decision not to build equally large numbers of onshore windymills as happened previously recognises the true position of pointless and costly onshore wind when taxpayer largesse is lacking and green blob pockets aren't being lined in the manner to which operators have become accustomed.

Given I was employed with govt at the time the decision was made, I agree with paddymurphy that this is pure drivel.

It was a political decision made in the interests of gaining extra voters.

In which case you and Paddy must think that the gov't has people sitting on the decision-making committees of wind operators, were you one of them?

If onshore wind was economically viable, popular etc then the windies would still be pouring money into these white elephants to make a profit - as it is, the political decision to end onshore subsidies led to corporate decisions, two separate processes which you and paddy are confusing, obfuscation alert!

For all your bluster it's obvious where the drivel is, pity there isn't as much wind... parp..

[MYOB]

turbobloke said:

In which case you and Paddy must think that the gov't has people sitting on the decision-making committees of wind operators, were you one of them?

If onshore wind was economically viable, popular etc then the windies would still be pouring money into these white elephants to make a profit - as it is, the political decision to end onshore subsidies led to corporate decisions, two separate processes which you and paddy are confusing, obfuscation alert!

For all your bluster it's obvious where the drivel is, pity there isn't as much wind... parp..

You're being awfully ignorant as to how the wheels turn inside Government.

[turbobloke]

Sure! Obfuscate some more, it's almost as entertaining as the ad homs from Paddy and adds nothing to actual evidence, based on scientific and engineering principles (RE<C, EROEI) which indicate clearly that renewables are a costly and pointless distraction. Keep the faith

Meanwhile back in the real world, thank goodness wasting public money aka renewables subsidies is starting to dip.

[MYOB]

turbobloke said:

Sure! Obfuscate some more, it's almost as entertaining as the ad homs from Paddy and adds nothing to actual evidence, based on scientific and engineering principles (RE<C, EROEI) which indicate clearly that renewables are a costly and pointless distraction. Keep the faith

Meanwhile back in the real world, thank goodness wasting public money aka renewables subsidies is starting to dip.

Sorry, not seen any valid evidence from you. All you need to do is use Google to understand why the Tories wanted to discourage onshore wind. But trust me, you won't find evidence to substantiate my claims.

You do realise less subsidies will mean higher prices for consumers?

[PRTVR]

MYOB said:

turbobloke said:

Sure! Obfuscate some more, it's almost as entertaining as the ad homs from Paddy and adds nothing to actual evidence, based on scientific and engineering principles (RE<C, EROEI) which indicate clearly that renewables are a costly and pointless distraction. Keep the faith

Meanwhile back in the real world, thank goodness wasting public money aka renewables subsidies is starting to dip.

Sorry, not seen any valid evidence from you. All you need to do is use Google to understand why the Tories wanted to discourage onshore wind. But trust me, you won't find evidence to substantiate my claims.

You do realise less subsidies will mean higher prices for consumers?

But we were told the reason for subsidies was to kick start the industry,not an ongoing payment to make wind costs look less ?

[MYOB]

PRTVR said:

But we were told the reason for subsidies was to kick start the industry,not an ongoing payment to make wind costs look less ?

All I'm saying is that energy bills will have to increase their charges once subsidies are stopped. Unless the Govt introduces legislation to cap our bills...

[turbobloke]

Reality check: Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative study...The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade...The report concludes that a wind turbine will typically generate less than half as much electricity when it is 15 years old than in its first year...The extra cost is likely to be passed on to households... (NSS)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windp...

Paddy will be along shortly to say it's not current, as though new windymills can be evaluated for wear / efficiency / cost after 15 years straight away without waiting 15 years, and the results are wrong because the windymills were examined 5 years ago even though their condition and uselessness had already deteriorated by then

Dr John Constable as Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation said:

This study confirms suspicions that decades of generous subsidies to the wind industry have failed to encourage the innovation needed to make the sector competitive.

Bluntly, wind turbines onshore and offshore still cost too much and wear out far too quickly to offer the developing world a realistic alternative to coal.

Prof Hughes, the Report author, commented that the analysis had uncovered a “hidden” truth that was not even known to the industry. His report was sent to an independent statistician at University College London who confirmed its findings. Cool.

[PRTVR]

MYOB said:

PRTVR said:

But we were told the reason for subsidies was to kick start the industry,not an ongoing payment to make wind costs look less ?

All I'm saying is that energy bills will have to increase their charges once subsidies are stopped. Unless the Govt introduces legislation to cap our bills...

So we pay for it directly and see it on the bill or indirectly from general taxation, my view they should compete with other producers on price and availability if they are a serious power generator.

[powerstroke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

In which case you and Paddy must think that the gov't has people sitting on the decision-making committees of wind operators, were you one of them?

If onshore wind was economically viable, popular etc then the windies would still be pouring money into these white elephants to make a profit - as it is, the political decision to end onshore subsidies led to corporate decisions, two separate processes which you and paddy are confusing, obfuscation alert!

For all your bluster it's obvious where the drivel is, pity there isn't as much wind... parp..

to concur - you have no idea how it works do you.
The decision to pull Onshore from the funding regime was purely political to appease the Tory Nimbies.
Nothing to do with 'gov't has people sitting on the decision-making committees of wind operators' you are chasing the wrong bus.


And an idiot to boot.

I wonder what it will take for the wheels to come off the windmill gravy train ??/
power cuts or shortage of cash ??

[jurbie]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

In which case you and Paddy must think that the gov't has people sitting on the decision-making committees of wind operators, were you one of them?

If onshore wind was economically viable, popular etc then the windies would still be pouring money into these white elephants to make a profit - as it is, the political decision to end onshore subsidies led to corporate decisions, two separate processes which you and paddy are confusing, obfuscation alert!

For all your bluster it's obvious where the drivel is, pity there isn't as much wind... parp..

to concur - you have no idea how it works do you.
The decision to pull Onshore from the funding regime was purely political to appease the Tory Nimbies.
Nothing to do with 'gov't has people sitting on the decision-making committees of wind operators' you are chasing the wrong bus.


And an idiot to boot.

Could you clarify the bit in bold as it rather sounds like you are agreeing with TB? TB is saying that onshore wind has stopped being built because the subsidies were pulled and your comment seems to back this up. The reason for pulling the funding, NIMBY's or otherwise, is neither here nor there, you both appear to agree that subsidies were stopped and the developers abandoned onshore wind.

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

Gary C said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Sure they have as Kickstarter type projects, to bring in the innovation and reduce the LCOE
How has Nuclear prices been progressing?

Nuclear power prices for existing nuclear around £40-50mwhr, better in real terms than in the mid to late 90's,if you discount the chronic under investment of the time, but no innovation or build since the early 90's. The AGR fleet were all largely experimental nationalised projects never meant to make a real profit and sizewell b was because we got bored of gas reactors so we took an existing design and re-worked it.

The nuclear market has a part to play as has wind if we really want to decarbonise and the only way anyone was to take on the risk was to have a price it would work at. Maybe once edf have an operating station, the other interested parties will finally invest.

So are you saying, wind deserves much larger subsidies to get it up and running but no other tech does ?

The fast breeder at Dounreay was experimental, AGRs aren't experimental, they are a logical progression from Magnox. although there was an element of R&D undertaken during construction.

The intention was to sell AGRs abroad, this never happened due primarily to construction cost and adverse US influence favouring their bloated submarine reactors. This could have been countered by factoring in a cost element for risk, e.g. Fukushima

When I say experimental, I mean that each series was a new prototype, which brought its own significant challenges and shared little with the previous series.

U
Dungeness B used a seven element stringer, and was so delayed, that the significantly different Hinckley B/ hunterston which shared little but the actual fuel element (this time with eight per stringer) was commissioned well before dnb finally started up. Heysham 1/Hartlepool then followed with a radical redesign using pod boilers in a completely new pressure vessel with bottom loaded Gas circulators before heysham 2/torness abandoned that design to further developed the ideas from the Hinckley b reactor.

Each series was significantly different, had little carried over such that we share little these days technically apart from fuel elements and gas chemistry on the reactor side.

It was well more than an 'element of R&D'. the industry at the time was heavily engineer led with many eminent leaders in their fields (we still call up some that are still with us for advice as they were on the cutting edge of a small field such as graphite radiolitic oxidisation) and we couldn't resist tinkering

And just when we got it working, we abandoned gas reactors for the pwr.

Edited by Gary C on Saturday 2nd December 22:43

[V8 Fettler]

Gary C said:

V8 Fettler said:

Gary C said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Sure they have as Kickstarter type projects, to bring in the innovation and reduce the LCOE
How has Nuclear prices been progressing?

Nuclear power prices for existing nuclear around £40-50mwhr, better in real terms than in the mid to late 90's,if you discount the chronic under investment of the time, but no innovation or build since the early 90's. The AGR fleet were all largely experimental nationalised projects never meant to make a real profit and sizewell b was because we got bored of gas reactors so we took an existing design and re-worked it.

The nuclear market has a part to play as has wind if we really want to decarbonise and the only way anyone was to take on the risk was to have a price it would work at. Maybe once edf have an operating station, the other interested parties will finally invest.

So are you saying, wind deserves much larger subsidies to get it up and running but no other tech does ?

The fast breeder at Dounreay was experimental, AGRs aren't experimental, they are a logical progression from Magnox. although there was an element of R&D undertaken during construction.

The intention was to sell AGRs abroad, this never happened due primarily to construction cost and adverse US influence favouring their bloated submarine reactors. This could have been countered by factoring in a cost element for risk, e.g. Fukushima

When I say experimental, I mean that each series was a new prototype, which brought its own significant challenges and shared little with the previous series.

U
Dungeness B used a seven element stringer, and was so delayed, that the significantly different Hinckley B/ hunterston which shared little but the actual fuel element (this time with eight per stringer) was commissioned well before dnb finally started up. Heysham 1/Hartlepool then followed with a radical redesign using pod boilers in a completely new pressure vessel with bottom loaded Gas circulators before heysham 2/torness abandoned that design to further developed the ideas from the Hinckley b reactor.

Each series was significantly different, had little carried over such that we share little these days technically apart from fuel elements and gas chemistry on the reactor side.

It was well more than an 'element of R&D'. the industry at the time was heavily engineer led with many eminent leaders in their fields (we still call up some that are still with us for advice as they were on the cutting edge of a small field such as graphite radiolitic oxidisation) and we couldn't resist tinkering

And just when we got it working, we abandoned gas reactors for the pwr.

Edited by Gary C on Saturday 2nd December 22:43

The prototype was the WAGR at Windscale.

I don't think that anyone can argue that the construction of Dungeness B was not a challenging process, particularly following the financial collapse of Atomic Power Construction.

It's not unusual for design to continue during the construction phase of any major project, although the complexity of the AGR design amplified costs and delays resulting from the design changes.

The clean-up cost for Fukushima (bloated submarine reactors) is estimated at approx $190 billion. AGRs are inherently more resiliant than boiling water reactors, perhaps AGRs designed and maintained by the British at Fukushima could have survived the incident intact.

[Nickbrapp]

As a engineer at a coal fired station, I do wonder if the target of all of them being shut by 2022 will be met, RWE have invested millions in importing hivol coal from Russia and then the associated boiler upgrades and explosion risk equipment and upgrades to site fire systems, will they simply let all that go to waste within 5 years?

They are on the contract for on demand firing to top the grid up, but if it’s only going to be short term I can’t see it being profitable for them.

Spending time in a gas station I can see why that should be the future, so much smaller, cleaner and a nicer environment to work in. A warehouse smaller than a Tesco compared to a coal station the size of a distribution warehouse.

Saying that energy from waste sites seem to be flying up all over the shop.

Edited by Nickbrapp on Sunday 3rd December 10:55

[V8 Fettler]

MYOB said:

turbobloke said:

In which case you and Paddy must think that the gov't has people sitting on the decision-making committees of wind operators, were you one of them?

If onshore wind was economically viable, popular etc then the windies would still be pouring money into these white elephants to make a profit - as it is, the political decision to end onshore subsidies led to corporate decisions, two separate processes which you and paddy are confusing, obfuscation alert!

For all your bluster it's obvious where the drivel is, pity there isn't as much wind... parp..

You're being awfully ignorant as to how the wheels turn inside Government.

Erratically and inefficiently.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Abandoned Onshore is not strictly true- but without the top up of the Subsidy it is 'currently' untenable for the developers / owners generally speaking...

http://renews.biz/94541/onshore-deserves-cfd-suppo...

http://renews.biz/107917/arup-backs-subsidy-free-c...

Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Saturday 2nd December 22:17

i am struggling to see the difference in what you have posted and the essence of what tb has posted ? the reason for the subsidies being pulled is neither here nor there,imo. yours a tb acolyte

[MYOB]

V8 Fettler said:

MYOB said:

turbobloke said:

In which case you and Paddy must think that the gov't has people sitting on the decision-making committees of wind operators, were you one of them?

If onshore wind was economically viable, popular etc then the windies would still be pouring money into these white elephants to make a profit - as it is, the political decision to end onshore subsidies led to corporate decisions, two separate processes which you and paddy are confusing, obfuscation alert!

For all your bluster it's obvious where the drivel is, pity there isn't as much wind... parp..

You're being awfully ignorant as to how the wheels turn inside Government.

Erratically and inefficiently.

Yep.