The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Einion Yrth]

Wayoftheflower said:

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.

In four and a half billion years the climate has never been static, you are always going to be getting a new one. I don't trust the current set of liars to tell me how best to optimise the inevitable change
Your mileage, of course, may vary..

[s2art]

Wayoftheflower said:

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.

There is no evidence that wind farms make much difference to CO2 output. (the Dutch found no difference, the Danes similarly) . Maybe as windmills get better that may change, but because of spinning reserve and the reduced efficiency of gas plants in smoothing out erratic power delivery we end up with similar CO2 output. Coal is bad for CO2, but gas will be the fuel. BTW what subsidies are you talking about for coal?.

[Wayoftheflower]

Einion Yrth said:

In four and a half billion years the climate has never been static

True, but it's also true its never changed this rapidly before either. Why risk it?

[Likes Fast Cars]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

s2art said:

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.

Nor free of OpeX or Infrastructure costs either.

And I for one am not entirely convinced that we fully understand the challenges (engineering, operational, and financial) of such Mega(Giga) storage battery installations!

[rovermorris999]

Wayoftheflower said:

True, but it's also true its never changed this rapidly before either. Why risk it?

Really? How do we know? There have been so many recent 'adjustments' to the temperature record over the period that humans have been measuring it that a finger in the wind would be more trustworthy.

[Likes Fast Cars]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Wind therefore can never achieve 100% capacity die to climate constraints (the required wind speeds cannot be achieved in all locations at the same time).

Well thats clear and - would you believe it - factored in and a known.

As per various posts I've made in 'The Other' thread - say for example:

you have a fast Jag or similar. 400HP rated. How often do you use the full 400HP, full chat?
Or the 155mph or whatever speed limit.

Is it relevant ? no.
Why have a 155mph / 400hp car ?


It's about harnessing the useable range and performance to suit the moment, no ? .
Wind : The Same.


To have the capacity, does not mean it performs like that day in and out. Nor is it expected to.

Agreed Paddy wrt the factoring in of the wind availability, although I'm not sure we're there yet as a market when it comes to having enough total available generation capability to meet forecasted / actual demand if one or two unplanned outages were to happen during peak times. I'm seeing it happen in some other (not UK) markets as recently as 18 months ago, not a pretty sight! Some arses need some kicking somewhere but that's another story.

In relation to the valid car analogy I make no apologies, give me my Jag with all its glorious horsepower any day It's the thrill of getting to 155 mph as quickly as you can that gives one the buzz; not that I would dare do that sort of speed on a public road mind you, being the good citizen that I am! - so yes I suppose it is about harnessing what you need

[Wayoftheflower]

rovermorris999 said:

Really? How do we know? There have been so many recent 'adjustments' to the temperature record over the period that humans have been measuring it that a finger in the wind would be more trustworthy.

The beauty of science is it only takes one contrary fact to disprove a theory. If you have such unequivocal information please share it and enlighten every major scientific body in the entire world that they have been sadly wrong all this time.

Share and enjoy.

[Einion Yrth]

Wayoftheflower said:

rovermorris999 said:

Really? How do we know? There have been so many recent 'adjustments' to the temperature record over the period that humans have been measuring it that a finger in the wind would be more trustworthy.

The beauty of science is it only takes one contrary fact to disprove a theory. If you have such unequivocal information please share it and enlighten every major scientific body in the entire world that they have been sadly wrong all this time.

Share and enjoy.

As the last ice age came to an end sea levels were rising at about 10cm per year. I suspect the residents of Doggerland at that time would have laughed in your face; as do I.

[Wayoftheflower]

Einion Yrth said:

As the last ice age came to an end sea levels were rising at about 10cm per year. I suspect the residents of Doggerland at that time would have laughed in your face; as do I.

Damn those decimal places are TRICKY aren't they? 1cm/year

I don't think rearranging the coastline at anywhere near that rate with current population distribution is a good idea either.

[Gandahar]

The thing being forgotten is that all energy producing plants need downtime. Whether it be wind or this that or the other.

A nuclear plant does 24/7 until it takes 3 weeks out for maintenance,

Talking of which Hinkley Point is getting me more and more worried on the cost front

http://www.hazardexonthenet.net/article/135329/EDF...

Given Brexit as well during the commissioning phase, where our currency might tank v the Euro.... it just seems like a big white nuclear elephant.

I'd rather we do turbines or Donald selling us coal from the rustbelt and transferred over on steamships.

IT WOULD BE CHEAPER.

We need to stop it now. Do anything rather than that.

PH members burn their bra's !

Seriously though, this is a really big f uck up nobody seems to have got around to dealing with due to other pressing matters.

[Gandahar]

Einion Yrth said:

Wayoftheflower said:

rovermorris999 said:

Really? How do we know? There have been so many recent 'adjustments' to the temperature record over the period that humans have been measuring it that a finger in the wind would be more trustworthy.

The beauty of science is it only takes one contrary fact to disprove a theory. If you have such unequivocal information please share it and enlighten every major scientific body in the entire world that they have been sadly wrong all this time.

Share and enjoy.

As the last ice age came to an end sea levels were rising at about 10cm per year. .

Have you got a graph for that?

Whenever someone gives me a figure that is a nice round number it sets the old alarm bells ringing

[s2art]

Wayoftheflower said:

True, but it's also true its never changed this rapidly before either. Why risk it?

I take it you are joking. In the early part of the 20th century (1920's-30's) it changed as fast, probably faster when the unadjusted temperatures are used.

[Wayoftheflower]

s2art said:

I take it you are joking. In the early part of the 20th century (1920's-30's) it changed as fast, probably faster when the unadjusted temperatures are used.

Please post a link when making statements like that, it helps.
Here's one that seems to not back that up but I'm not sure what adjustment you're referring to. Wiki

[s2art]

Wayoftheflower said:

s2art said:

I take it you are joking. In the early part of the 20th century (1920's-30's) it changed as fast, probably faster when the unadjusted temperatures are used.

Please post a link when making statements like that, it helps.
Here's one that seems to not back that up but I'm not sure what adjustment you're referring to. Wiki

Take this to the climate change thread. Either the science one or the politics one as both are relevant.

[mondeoman]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Wind therefore can never achieve 100% capacity die to climate constraints (the required wind speeds cannot be achieved in all locations at the same time).

Well thats clear and - would you believe it - factored in and a known.

As per various posts I've made in 'The Other' thread - say for example:

you have a fast Jag or similar. 400HP rated. How often do you use the full 400HP, full chat?
Or the 155mph or whatever speed limit.

Is it relevant ? no.
Why have a 155mph / 400hp car ?


It's about harnessing the useable range and performance to suit the moment, no ? .
Wind : The Same.


To have the capacity, does not mean it performs like that day in and out. Nor is it expected to.

That's a false analogy though, and you know it. It's more like having a battery car that can do 200 miles on a charge, and on the one day you REALLY need it, you forgot to plug it in the night before, so you have to use public transport to do your 50 mile commute, but the buses don't go through your village and you can't afford a taxi so you have to walk.

That's windmills.

[Wayoftheflower]

s2art said:

Take this to the climate change thread. Either the science one or the politics one as both are relevant.

Not interested in the politics, see you in the science thread.

[BobToc]

Coming to this late, but the real requirement is load balancing, whether it's fast response OCGTs, Dong's battery solution at Burbo Bank, something akin to Gigabattery, or more CCGTs. Given where the smaller scale stuff is bidding into capacity markets it's very hard to make the economics of CCGTs stack up, but maybe embedded benefits reform changes that.

[LongQ]

mondeoman said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Wind therefore can never achieve 100% capacity die to climate constraints (the required wind speeds cannot be achieved in all locations at the same time).

Well thats clear and - would you believe it - factored in and a known.

As per various posts I've made in 'The Other' thread - say for example:

you have a fast Jag or similar. 400HP rated. How often do you use the full 400HP, full chat?
Or the 155mph or whatever speed limit.

Is it relevant ? no.
Why have a 155mph / 400hp car ?


It's about harnessing the useable range and performance to suit the moment, no ? .
Wind : The Same.


To have the capacity, does not mean it performs like that day in and out. Nor is it expected to.

That's a false analogy though, and you know it. It's more like having a battery car that can do 200 miles on a charge, and on the one day you REALLY need it, you forgot to plug it in the night before, so you have to use public transport to do your 50 mile commute, but the buses don't go through your village and you can't afford a taxi so you have to walk.

That's windmills.

Paddy - that has to be then most inverted analogy I could imagine.

Mondeoman gets closer.

The barking politicians seem to be planning in all seriousness to make a legal requirement (in their terms) to move to and achieve 100% no "carbon" renewables electricity generation with NO CARBON in the energy mix at all. No Gas, and certainly no coal. Some, like M. Hulot, are allowed to suggest that they will eliminate non-carbon sources (Nuclear) as well.

In that scenario, absent a huge investment (and release of "carbon" in the construction phases - exactly what the greenest greens tell us must stop immediately) in some sort of storage of excess energy to provide possible coverage for extended periods of generation below demand (even "managed" demand) you would not have the option to " harnessing the useable range and performance to suit the moment". There would be no usable range and no performance to suit the moment.

Still, at least you have confirmed that 100% capacity using only renewables cannot be achieved. I have a strong recollection that that you were not aligned with that view in the past.

Perhaps some of you contact could mention the to Mr. Hulot and the others who are trying to keep abreast of him in their race to make the worst long term decisions imaginable, especially in the case of France given its strong low CO2 output starting point.

I mean if Low CO2 is really a good thing and you already have it .... why on earth would you choose now to do something so counter intuitive as swap reliable and planable output for erratic generation while committing your country to an entirely electric future?

[Mr GrimNasty]

Al Gore and Paddy have the same vision for our future (obviously partaking the same hallucinogenic compounds).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/al-gore-pra...

And MUSK's publicity stunt adding an enormously expensive battery that will provide a few minutes backup if there has been sufficient excess production to charge it, solves a destabilised grid and wind going awol for days/weeks/months at a time, how exactly? (Ans: It won't, gas power stations will.)

It defies logic to persist with windmills, they are expensive archaic low efficiency technology that require 100% back up, the backup being forced to operate inefficiently and thus further increasing costs.

Do you:-
(a) Do 1 thing cheaply cleanly and efficiently with reliability.
(b) Another thing expensively and the original thing inefficiently and expensively, with less reliability.

IT IS INSANE to do (b), patently.

A reality check for Paddy - "A green economy is possible, but at what cost?" Financial Times (Google if link fails or paywalled.)

https://www.ft.com/content/1c849b9a-6486-11e7-8526...

Of course Paddy will just lie and spin because there is a fortune to be made - the one thing you will notice about all the prominent CAGW and green energy proponents - they have all amassed vast personal wealth and have the personal carbon-footprint the size of a small country.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

Still, at least you have confirmed that 100% capacity using only renewables cannot be achieved. I have a strong recollection that that you were not aligned with that view in the past.

Steady now -
I have never, professionally or here on PH claimed that 100% capacity by renewables can be achieved, and always advocated the need for a balance portfolio.

I'd happily challenge you or anyone to prove otherwise.



As above and infinitum - I am correcting wrong assumptions made by others on here - the usual sweeping statements, churlish and pithy mis-throws - not to mention blinded stupidity. (you all know who you are )

Policy et al can be thrown around by everyone else.

Maybe it was just an impression.

The challenge is that the more one form of generation is preferred, especially for ideological reasons in terms of political policy - and it is and will be policy rather than simple commercial options that guide the direction of investment for the foreseeable future - the less able are other forms to be able to function economically.

So a policy that always favours "renewables" over anything vaguely "carbon" (to take an example) would, given a spurious objective to aim for 100% renewable production having favoured status, restrict other forms of dispatchable production to almost no production days if the over-provision of renewables that most papers so far produced have assumed is treated as favoured supply.

Now in that scenario and with a mandated to always have backup, your renewable cost of production could be zero but you still have to have the backup plan in place and ready to run. Therefore you carry costs for backup that will redundant 99% of the time (if you are lucky) but that will incur pretty much the same overall costs for everything except fuel although a store of fuel will still be required. Meanwhile you have to over spend to provision for extra renewable output to cover expected variability.

So you buy everything twice, or more.

More because strategies that look at the potential for satisfying the "100%" whims of the politicians mostly find that to deliver that you take the capacity the you expect need according to highest demand (in the UK about 40% more in winter than summer) and add a safety buffer. If you seek to do that with renewables only the numbers indicate that you have to rely on wind (since at least it has potential for air moving about 24 hours a day) and the chance are you should plan for about 2.5 to 3 times the max demand to have some chance of covering the low output days. Still likely to miss a few low output high demand periods though.

If you real want to cover the ones you will miss you will need quickly dispatchable backup that is also capable of meeting the majority of the maximum demand requirements. That investment will be sitting idle 99% of the time and in the meantime someone has spent 2.5 to 3 times the investment to attempt to deliver 100% renewables generation. All of the developers and investors will want their money back and some profit (they will need it to pay their energy bills!)

That 1% of emergency generation will cost nearly as much (some might claim more due to plant not being designed for extended periods of non-use or any stop start operation) as the whole cost of generation for the year.

It would be a situation that in so many ways would be a complete waste of what it known as "human capital".

The only backup technology that is currently available at that scale and could be seen as relatively reliable and instantly (more or less) dispatchable would be diesel generation. That said at that scale there might still be a few problems and to suggest it assumes that the attempts to eliminate diesel as a fuel with volume production facilities have not been successful.

So, with that in mind, how does one balance the portfolio so that no one, especially the consumer who is likely to be hit by any imbalance in several ways, loses out or end up paying over whatever is truly necessary because some politicians have set off on blinkered vanity trips?

Not just How? is the portfolio to be balanced but also who is going to do it?