The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
wc98 said:
i am glad at least one other person on the planet appears interested in this,same goes for tidal. the limited amount of info i can find on wind says a localised warming is created around wind farms.
We are not going to run out of wind.We are not going to run out of tide.
The sun delivers 10,000times more energy to the earths surface than we consume, you're not going to make a dent in that either unless you happen to start filling the atmosphere with gases that amplify the suns effect on the Earth's climate.
Wouldn't want that to happen.....
We can all observe the South Australian experiment with interest. 100MW Battery
Wayoftheflower said:
wc98 said:
i am glad at least one other person on the planet appears interested in this,same goes for tidal. the limited amount of info i can find on wind says a localised warming is created around wind farms.
We are not going to run out of wind.We are not going to run out of tide.
The sun delivers 10,000times more energy to the earths surface than we consume, you're not going to make a dent in that either unless you happen to start filling the atmosphere with gases that amplify the suns effect on the Earth's climate.
Wouldn't want that to happen.....
We can all observe the South Australian experiment with interest. 100MW Battery
Well that link shows what we are getting out of wind right now...0.65 GW, not exactly great is it?
rovermorris999 said:
LongQ said:
South Australia is ahead of the curve with experience in that area and they are hoping the Musk and Tesla can help them out although as I understand it they can only afford to install about 1/3rd of the capacity they really need for the new turbine array with which the battery will co-exist. I presume they hope that Tesla will fail to deliver, Musk will give them the installation free and they can then spend the original budget on the same again to get to 2/3 of the required capacity.
After thyat they would need to hope that Tesla continues to prosper for a while and then start saving the cents for the replacement battery system in 10 to 15 years time.
One day soon I hope to get back the reports that are considering the "100% renewables" model that so much of what passes for Power Generation policy seems to be chasing. Although I'm not sure why it is necessary to do so since the lack of garments on the Emperor really should be plain for all to see.
End of thread really for renewables. Please force our politicians to read this post.After thyat they would need to hope that Tesla continues to prosper for a while and then start saving the cents for the replacement battery system in 10 to 15 years time.
One day soon I hope to get back the reports that are considering the "100% renewables" model that so much of what passes for Power Generation policy seems to be chasing. Although I'm not sure why it is necessary to do so since the lack of garments on the Emperor really should be plain for all to see.
Back to the UK, no one anywhere in the world has ever stated that renewables will provide 100% of our energy needs. Just that the % provided by renewables will continue to grow as the technology improves. Statements like "renewables will always require 100% backup from fossil fuels" are so wrong they are laughable.
London424 said:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Well that link shows what we are getting out of wind right now...0.65 GW, not exactly great is it?
The 5% from PV on this cloudy Tuesday is mightily impressive though!Well that link shows what we are getting out of wind right now...0.65 GW, not exactly great is it?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
I'm sure you know full well that the total system costs to the consumers should always include connection and distribution and some element for backup in case of failure.
I don't dispute the logic and content of your post. I equally have never sought to reach a 100% renewables scenario - but a balanced mix.
But without a shadow of a doubt over the last 5 months of replying on this and that 'Other' farcical thread there has been a shift. A movement of the 'test' for the renewables. In some ways I have only ever enlighten ill informed on the cost, production and alike of Wind - specifically Offshore Wind as you know.
Wagers have been laid, dummy spat - but I think its fair to say You and others had no idea that the LCOE of the current, moreover the imminent future of Offshore Wind was so close to parity. With certainty it will soon break that point to say it will stand independent of government funding within a decade (for certain) within 5 years (possibly)
I do also see at this point (zero subsidy) the volume of installation - hence plated capacity of the power source - will rapidly rise.
Consumption increase will be far less an increase and the excess (back up) will be created by the volume working even at such a low yield many here gleefully rub their hands at (zero wind days as they suggest).
Goalposts in the 'test' for Renewables / Wind has definitely changed here on PH as it has dawned where the numbers (capacity / size / LCOE) and the industry - which by en large is never seen, understood or accepted in scale unless seen like above from the air due to its location away from the day to day lives of the majority - has been and going.
With all due respect to your efforts at keeping us informed about the latest projected numbers it's not a surprise that economies of scale (and similar effects of technical developments and, where appropriate, logistical efficiencies) will kick in at some point but they almost always have a limit at some point.
I think most people here have always taken that as a given.
The challenge for anything with intermittent or unreliable delivery of a product where an unreliable or even just inconsistent supply is becoming ever less acceptable, is that the risk has to be covered. This would be the same with a 100% Gas generated supply with almost no buffer storage (now that Rough is to be abandoned) as it is for intermittency that is beyond human control UNLESS the costs are greatly increased by engineering some form of energy storage.
The balance of the argument comes down to
Is there viable storage capacity achievable in some ways?
If yes, how much will it cost and what, if any, disruptive effects will it have as it is deployed.
Can it be relied upon to do the job?
Is the cost really justified? Is there no better way?
Wind power was harnessed for centuries at sea and on land.
Hydro energy was harnessed to - partly at sea (following currents) and on land by the use of water mills.
Interestingly for mobility on land humans tended to use animals which was probably OK in the countryside but bad news as industrialisation and conurbations became the centres for commerce and social interaction leading to concentrated pollution in those areas. Some things never change it seems.
The problem, as I see it, is not whether the price of offshore wind is becoming more competitive per se.
It's more that the idiot politicians will only feel obliged to understand half the story, set policy for 100% renewables whether or not you, I and the rest of the world's population think that makes sense, and then make a complete mess of several decades of the investment of "human capital" by heading down a dead end for reasons of extremely dubious political dogma.
Humans in some of the more realistic parts of the world will probably avoid this self induced trap in the longer term. They can buy some time to see how things work out by deferring the challenges for a generation or so whilst at the same time generating wealth by supplying the goods that the prime experimenters need to undertake their experiments.
No single electricity generation fuel source will ever become inexpensive. The market will naturally make sure it has as high a value as can be created and sustained. The cost of, for example, offshore wind may indeed come down but at some point it will level out (as an average across all sites) and be worked by the traders to make as much profit as possible from the consumers as is always the case.
Right not the existing major players need a few headline halo deals to keep things going the way they want them to go with the decision makers and so with any predators (The oil companies?) who may be moving into the feeding grounds as the newcomers disrupt their traditional markets.
DONG was a very early mover and good example of what was a hot business seminar topic 20 or so years back - business transformation.
DONG et al are not in the business of coming up with a balanced supply deal - that's a political responsibility. They ARE in the business of making money and satisfying the expectation of their investors. They are legally bound to do that above everything else. They play games with the politicians on that basis and with one eye on their competition trying to make sure that they can maximise influence in order to maximise returns. No more, no less.
That is all that you can be sure of. Pricing suggestions as part of future non-binding quotes may be genuine or may be plays in the game. Or possibly a small bet to hook the political players to the idea of regular returns to the betting shop with ever larger wagers to support their collective egos and reinforce the idea that they have made the right decisions on behalf of the populace they represent.
The meme of 100% renewables that the politicians seem to want to chase would be neat for them. With no non-renewable generation locally nobody would ever be able to produce indisputable evidence that they made the wrong bet.
Wayoftheflower said:
London424 said:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Well that link shows what we are getting out of wind right now...0.65 GW, not exactly great is it?
The 5% from PV on this cloudy Tuesday is mightily impressive though!Well that link shows what we are getting out of wind right now...0.65 GW, not exactly great is it?
As far as I know it is not (yet?) metered in near real time and the figures are an estimate, taken as and when they can be taken, based on an information stream from a department at Sheffield University. See the pop out if you hover over the "gauge" for a little more information.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
V8 Fettler said:
Where total installed capacity is 5.355GW, what is the minimum output at any one time? This would most likely be on a day with minimum wind...
So I was right in the point that you're needling is that hypothetically there is a 'Zero' day. 
Do you have data for minimum utilisation for offshore only? Or is it a secret?
babatunde said:
Well firstly we are talking about the UK, Australia & other tropical climates will always be able to generate a lot more from Solar, or do you think it's a fluke that 25|% for residential homes have solar installations, also unless you think that both Tesla & the Australian Govt are on drugs your hypothesis that they are planning on time scale of installation failing is simply wrong
Back to the UK, no one anywhere in the world has ever stated that renewables will provide 100% of our energy needs. Just that the % provided by renewables will continue to grow as the technology improves. Statements like "renewables will always require 100% backup from fossil fuels" are so wrong they are laughable.
So, say wind and solar supply an (intermittent) 25% of our energy but its mid winter and there is no wind or sun for a few days. What happens if there isnt 100% backup?Back to the UK, no one anywhere in the world has ever stated that renewables will provide 100% of our energy needs. Just that the % provided by renewables will continue to grow as the technology improves. Statements like "renewables will always require 100% backup from fossil fuels" are so wrong they are laughable.
Edited by s2art on Tuesday 11th July 16:36
Edited by s2art on Tuesday 11th July 16:37
Demand 'management' I expect. Paying shedloads to industry to shut down and lower voltage for the rest of us. If we're lucky. Otherwise candles and Damart to quote someone else 
Forgot the diesel generating farms too. Think of the 'carbon'! Oh the humanity!
Forgot the diesel generating farms too. Think of the 'carbon'! Oh the humanity!
Edited by rovermorris999 on Tuesday 11th July 16:38
Wayoftheflower said:
We are not going to run out of wind.
We are not going to run out of tide.
The sun delivers 10,000times more energy to the earths surface than we consume, you're not going to make a dent in that either unless you happen to start filling the atmosphere with gases that amplify the suns effect on the Earth's climate.
Wouldn't want that to happen.....
We can all observe the South Australian experiment with interest. 100MW Battery
who said we were (we will actually run out of sun , in a few billion years time ) i am talking about the net effect of removing energy from air and ocean current streams that are intrinsically linked to how the planet functions . We are not going to run out of tide.
The sun delivers 10,000times more energy to the earths surface than we consume, you're not going to make a dent in that either unless you happen to start filling the atmosphere with gases that amplify the suns effect on the Earth's climate.
Wouldn't want that to happen.....
We can all observe the South Australian experiment with interest. 100MW Battery
punting a few parts per million extra c02 into the atmosphere when we already know there was no runaway warming in the past when co2 levels were higher is my preferred option at the moment.
Looking at the data from here
During the dark days of the 2017 wind crisis Gas generation increased to around 26GW peak.
As current claimed gas generation capacity is 32GW ( sauce) there's no need to panic.
The data is very interesting in that what the UK needs is around 22GW of absolute base capacity to keep the lights on for Christmas Eve minimum demand. Everything over that up to the 2016 peak of demand of 51GW is transient. It seems to me that the UK already has a massive over capacity of transient sources in coal & gas but could easily triple the base (currently fission) capacity.
16-20GW of generation, a third of capacity is turned off every night between about Midnight to 6am. The UK is using around 300GWh of transient capacity a day above an averaged demand of 1000GWh/day. To smooth this out with a Mega(Giga)battery at $400-600/kWh for a Tesla style installation would be around 100-140 Billion pounds.
Quadruple nuclear capacity to go with the Gigabattery and your can demolish every other transient form of generation, every wind turbine, solar panel, fossil fuel power station and hydro dam and EVEN BETTER people will stop argueing about it on the internet.
The really encouraging thing about this discussion I think is that it there is not longer an unimaginable technology gap to enabling any scheme you care to dream up, the costs at the moment are in the realms of national defence budgets and far below the costs of health care and social security.
For the truly sociopathic "For the greater good" advocate you'd halve government social security and healthcare spending for a year 'til Gigabattery is done, and surely NP&E can get behind that!
During the dark days of the 2017 wind crisis Gas generation increased to around 26GW peak.
As current claimed gas generation capacity is 32GW ( sauce) there's no need to panic.
The data is very interesting in that what the UK needs is around 22GW of absolute base capacity to keep the lights on for Christmas Eve minimum demand. Everything over that up to the 2016 peak of demand of 51GW is transient. It seems to me that the UK already has a massive over capacity of transient sources in coal & gas but could easily triple the base (currently fission) capacity.
16-20GW of generation, a third of capacity is turned off every night between about Midnight to 6am. The UK is using around 300GWh of transient capacity a day above an averaged demand of 1000GWh/day. To smooth this out with a Mega(Giga)battery at $400-600/kWh for a Tesla style installation would be around 100-140 Billion pounds.
Quadruple nuclear capacity to go with the Gigabattery and your can demolish every other transient form of generation, every wind turbine, solar panel, fossil fuel power station and hydro dam and EVEN BETTER people will stop argueing about it on the internet.
The really encouraging thing about this discussion I think is that it there is not longer an unimaginable technology gap to enabling any scheme you care to dream up, the costs at the moment are in the realms of national defence budgets and far below the costs of health care and social security.
For the truly sociopathic "For the greater good" advocate you'd halve government social security and healthcare spending for a year 'til Gigabattery is done, and surely NP&E can get behind that!
Wayoftheflower said:
Looking at the data from here
During the dark days of the 2017 wind crisis Gas generation increased to around 26GW peak.
As current claimed gas generation capacity is 32GW ( sauce) there's no need to panic.
The data is very interesting in that what the UK needs is around 22GW of absolute base capacity to keep the lights on for Christmas Eve minimum demand. Everything over that up to the 2016 peak of demand of 51GW is transient. It seems to me that the UK already has a massive over capacity of transient sources in coal & gas but could easily triple the base (currently fission) capacity.
16-20GW of generation, a third of capacity is turned off every night between about Midnight to 6am. The UK is using around 300GWh of transient capacity a day above an averaged demand of 1000GWh/day. To smooth this out with a Mega(Giga)battery at $400-600/kWh for a Tesla style installation would be around 100-140 Billion pounds.
Quadruple nuclear capacity to go with the Gigabattery and your can demolish every other transient form of generation, every wind turbine, solar panel, fossil fuel power station and hydro dam and EVEN BETTER people will stop argueing about it on the internet.
The really encouraging thing about this discussion I think is that it there is not longer an unimaginable technology gap to enabling any scheme you care to dream up, the costs at the moment are in the realms of national defence budgets and far below the costs of health care and social security.
For the truly sociopathic "For the greater good" advocate you'd halve government social security and healthcare spending for a year 'til Gigabattery is done, and surely NP&E can get behind that!
The problem with the Gigabattery is that its not a one-off cost. If its used a lot it will need replacing every few years, Its a very expensive option.During the dark days of the 2017 wind crisis Gas generation increased to around 26GW peak.
As current claimed gas generation capacity is 32GW ( sauce) there's no need to panic.
The data is very interesting in that what the UK needs is around 22GW of absolute base capacity to keep the lights on for Christmas Eve minimum demand. Everything over that up to the 2016 peak of demand of 51GW is transient. It seems to me that the UK already has a massive over capacity of transient sources in coal & gas but could easily triple the base (currently fission) capacity.
16-20GW of generation, a third of capacity is turned off every night between about Midnight to 6am. The UK is using around 300GWh of transient capacity a day above an averaged demand of 1000GWh/day. To smooth this out with a Mega(Giga)battery at $400-600/kWh for a Tesla style installation would be around 100-140 Billion pounds.
Quadruple nuclear capacity to go with the Gigabattery and your can demolish every other transient form of generation, every wind turbine, solar panel, fossil fuel power station and hydro dam and EVEN BETTER people will stop argueing about it on the internet.
The really encouraging thing about this discussion I think is that it there is not longer an unimaginable technology gap to enabling any scheme you care to dream up, the costs at the moment are in the realms of national defence budgets and far below the costs of health care and social security.
For the truly sociopathic "For the greater good" advocate you'd halve government social security and healthcare spending for a year 'til Gigabattery is done, and surely NP&E can get behind that!
LongQ said:
Elon Musk has committed to providing South Australia with a Li-On battery storage facility as part of a plan to avert the blame for future blackouts be connected to renewable energy issues related to wind generation.
One article I read suggests that the deal agreed is about 1/3 of what might be required for the new facility now being created due to the limited funds available in South Australia's budget.
Musk has guaranteed a 100 day installation period from a start date yet to be fixed. However that is just for the batteries and directly related infrastructure it seems - there are other costs involved to make it operational. Quite high costs are being speculated.
Musk says the installation will be free is they cannot install and complete in 100 days and has suggested a cost risk of $50 million plus - presumably USD.
This is quite serious stuff and at first blush seems to put the Tesla reputation on the line both for installation commitment and post installation. effectiveness. Fiscally a $50+ million risk is not to be ignored but who knows how the risk aspect are likely to be apportioned? In any case one might see it is as cheap PR even if it fails providing it only just fails on delivery times rather than performance post installation.
Lets assume is is installed on time and proves to work as expected. Tesla would then be in a good shape, so far as one could imagine right now with no solid investment numbers to work with, to dominate a fast growing market that might be the result. Or might not if people look at the costs and say "HOW MUCH?" .
I'm going to suggest that the politicians will forge ahead whatever the cost for as long as they can find taxes that provide income.
So eventually there will be a lot of Lithium based batteries around coming to end of their 10 year life expectancy and needing to be recycled. How can that be addressed?
Here's a paper that discusses it. Provided as background when considering the entire technology cycle.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
And of course he has said 100 days from the date of the signing of the agreement, which needs all approvals; now let's see how the market operator and regulator addresses the impact of such a large capacity storage system, there needs to be a lot of figuring out done on clearing prices, capacity payments, subsidies (?), etc., etc.... One article I read suggests that the deal agreed is about 1/3 of what might be required for the new facility now being created due to the limited funds available in South Australia's budget.
Musk has guaranteed a 100 day installation period from a start date yet to be fixed. However that is just for the batteries and directly related infrastructure it seems - there are other costs involved to make it operational. Quite high costs are being speculated.
Musk says the installation will be free is they cannot install and complete in 100 days and has suggested a cost risk of $50 million plus - presumably USD.
This is quite serious stuff and at first blush seems to put the Tesla reputation on the line both for installation commitment and post installation. effectiveness. Fiscally a $50+ million risk is not to be ignored but who knows how the risk aspect are likely to be apportioned? In any case one might see it is as cheap PR even if it fails providing it only just fails on delivery times rather than performance post installation.
Lets assume is is installed on time and proves to work as expected. Tesla would then be in a good shape, so far as one could imagine right now with no solid investment numbers to work with, to dominate a fast growing market that might be the result. Or might not if people look at the costs and say "HOW MUCH?" .
I'm going to suggest that the politicians will forge ahead whatever the cost for as long as they can find taxes that provide income.
So eventually there will be a lot of Lithium based batteries around coming to end of their 10 year life expectancy and needing to be recycled. How can that be addressed?
Here's a paper that discusses it. Provided as background when considering the entire technology cycle.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
carl_w said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I'm glad I'm not the only one a little perplexed.
Total offshore capacity (I am assuming we are talking UK as that is the thread?) is 5,355.520MW
I have no beef in either direction but is that maximum capacity assuming all wind turbines operating at 100% of capacity? Is the mean capacity a better measure (or maybe the median or mode -- it's a long time since I've done statistics)? Wind currently showing as 0.43 GW at http://gridwatch.templar.co.ukTotal offshore capacity (I am assuming we are talking UK as that is the thread?) is 5,355.520MW
I guess this is going to be a naïve question but wouldn't the wind farms be better off pointing to the south-west where the prevailing wind comes from? So in the Celtic Sea? Although I guess the English Channel/North Sea is shallower so easier to build on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/07/uk-... suggests that Wind made 9.5GW one day this year.
So adding the Offshore capacity (5GW) to the onshore (10GW) you can see the 9.5GW to be fairly healthy ON THAT ONE DAY before all the usual suspects shout.
As for locations - there is a load in the Irish sea / Liverpool bay areas. Soil conditions / Infrastructure grid connections further north are less receptive to Offshore wind deployment.
New sites also need large areas to suit the size of Turbines / array spacings to suit the individual sites of 1.2GW to 2.2GW .....
Off the Coast / Horizon on the East coast are the new prime locations (UK).
The photo above of the English channel is the only site in the Channel (as I say- under build)
wc98 said:
punting a few parts per million extra c02 into the atmosphere when we already know there was no runaway warming in the past when co2 levels were higher is my preferred option at the moment.
A few hundred extra ppm... but what's several orders of magnitude in an internet discussion? I don't know about you but rolling the dice on a new climate has little appeal to me, devil you know and all that.Will wind power solve base load generation without huge storage investment? No. Is it a far better option than continuing to use and subsidise coal fired power generation? I think so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff