The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
LongQ said:
Hmm.
Seems my previous post was indigestible.
Try this one. It's not more than a little musky.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297414
Apparently our Elon believes that 100 sq miles (or is that meant to be miles square?) or solar panels and single square mile of batteries would offer enough electricity generation to power the entire USA.
Presumably he is serious so I suppose it's worth considering and discussing here?
Presumably you realise that that is an illustrative example of the total amount of space needed obviously it wouldn't make any kind of sense to take a single 100x100 mile site, Transmission losses alone would make it impractical, Seems my previous post was indigestible.
Try this one. It's not more than a little musky.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297414
Apparently our Elon believes that 100 sq miles (or is that meant to be miles square?) or solar panels and single square mile of batteries would offer enough electricity generation to power the entire USA.
Presumably he is serious so I suppose it's worth considering and discussing here?
He is trying to show how little space is actually required to generate an enormous amount of electricity, America has
Chihuahuan Desert 140,000 square miles
The Sonoran Desert – 120,000 square miles
The Mojave Desert – 22,000 square miles
And 1000's of Square miles of smaller ones
So a tiny fraction of that land mass could provide enough power for all of the states, and no neither him nor I or anyone is saying that it's practical or sensible to generate all of the electricity requirements from solar, it's just another potential piece of the generation jigsaw.
babatunde said:
LongQ said:
Hmm.
Seems my previous post was indigestible.
Try this one. It's not more than a little musky.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297414
Apparently our Elon believes that 100 sq miles (or is that meant to be miles square?) or solar panels and single square mile of batteries would offer enough electricity generation to power the entire USA.
Presumably he is serious so I suppose it's worth considering and discussing here?
Presumably you realise that that is an illustrative example of the total amount of space needed obviously it wouldn't make any kind of sense to take a single 100x100 mile site, Transmission losses alone would make it impractical, Seems my previous post was indigestible.
Try this one. It's not more than a little musky.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297414
Apparently our Elon believes that 100 sq miles (or is that meant to be miles square?) or solar panels and single square mile of batteries would offer enough electricity generation to power the entire USA.
Presumably he is serious so I suppose it's worth considering and discussing here?
He is trying to show how little space is actually required to generate an enormous amount of electricity, America has
Chihuahuan Desert 140,000 square miles
The Sonoran Desert – 120,000 square miles
The Mojave Desert – 22,000 square miles
And 1000's of Square miles of smaller ones
So a tiny fraction of that land mass could provide enough power for all of the states, and no neither him nor I or anyone is saying that it's practical or sensible to generate all of the electricity requirements from solar, it's just another potential piece of the generation jigsaw.
babatunde said:
Presumably you realise that that is an illustrative example of the total amount of space needed obviously it wouldn't make any kind of sense to take a single 100x100 mile site, Transmission losses alone would make it impractical,
He is trying to show how little space is actually required to generate an enormous amount of electricity, America has
Chihuahuan Desert 140,000 square miles
The Sonoran Desert – 120,000 square miles
The Mojave Desert – 22,000 square miles
And 1000's of Square miles of smaller ones
So a tiny fraction of that land mass could provide enough power for all of the states, and no neither him nor I or anyone is saying that it's practical or sensible to generate all of the electricity requirements from solar, it's just another potential piece of the generation jigsaw.
the main problem with solar appears to be it takes more energy (generated by fossil fuels among other methods) to make the panels than they generate, at least up until 2013 anyway .He is trying to show how little space is actually required to generate an enormous amount of electricity, America has
Chihuahuan Desert 140,000 square miles
The Sonoran Desert – 120,000 square miles
The Mojave Desert – 22,000 square miles
And 1000's of Square miles of smaller ones
So a tiny fraction of that land mass could provide enough power for all of the states, and no neither him nor I or anyone is saying that it's practical or sensible to generate all of the electricity requirements from solar, it's just another potential piece of the generation jigsaw.
LongQ said:
Apparently our Elon believes that 100 sq miles (or is that meant to be miles square?) or solar panels and single square mile of batteries would offer enough electricity generation to power the entire USA.
Typical shoddy reporting 
It's 100x100 miles, so 10,000 sq miles. “If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said during his keynote conversation on Saturday at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.”
Not clear if Musk is talking about electricity only, or all US energy requirements, though?
(Wikipedia says Mojave desert is about 48,000 sq miles, so about 20% of that. )
For comparison, the biggest US coal mine is about 100 sq miles (i.e, 10x10) and provides roughly 10% of US coal - which in turn generates about 30% of US electricity. But coal mines don't last forever so you keep needing more and more land...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Hmm.
Seems my previous post was indigestible.
In truth - kind of, and I've been tasked with some new stuff too recently so little spare time to bounce in here.Seems my previous post was indigestible.
Is there one specific point you wanted a view on ?
Firstly my direct question about POTENTIAL generation which was related to one of your earlier posts. Just to clear that up.
Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied. By a lot. Indeed since they were apparently modelling to a projected 2030 target date (although they admit to that being challenging) one might suggest that we are already a long way off track with expenditure to match the model.
I thought perhaps you might have a comment about that given your previous observations and your information sources.
The two points seem to be linked so I would guess are part of the same answer.
If you have time for a third comment have a quick play with the model and follow the interactive time line to see how well, according to their numbers, generation can satisfy demand. Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values).
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Not my field of knowledge, but I believe that (the 2013 bit) is a key factor. Much like Wind, the step changes recent years have been huge.
That's the biggest lie of all.Costs will come down one day as matures, only needs a subsidy to get off the ground...........lies lies lies
25 years later, sorry can't replace the wind/solar industrial complex, not enough government 'support'.
You are talking about fundamentally INEFFICIENT INEFFECTIVE INTERMITTENT technology, there is no game changer, you can't increase the sun's w/m2, you can't reduce the enormous amount of materials and landscape consumed by windmills to produce what one small gas power station would for 1/4 of the cost.
But because the windmills have preferentially access to the market and are subsidized, it is then no longer economic to build/run a gas power station unless the market price is extremely high, and then you claim windmills are cheaper than gas.
Delusional/fraud.
Mr GrimNasty said:
You really are delusional Paddy, you can't power the world with renewables.
Quite right Norway does not exist either, that place running on renewables.
A mirage, a figment of our imagination.
Guess what FAKE Norway does with it's fossil fuels that it does not have to use
"The export value of crude oil, natural gas and condensate in 2016 was about NOK 350 billion. This amounts to approximately 47 % of the total value of Norway’s exports of goods"
That's imaginary too. I just made it all up
You are completely correct.
PS Can you put some thought into what you post, or at least something that is factual. I have seen this multiple times from you, your heart speaks whilst your brain is sleeping or actually not working at all. If you need to you can ask a member of family to help out typing your thoughts on here, I am sure they would not mind.
Edited by Gandahar on Monday 24th July 06:06
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Hmm.
Seems my previous post was indigestible.
In truth - kind of, and I've been tasked with some new stuff too recently so little spare time to bounce in here.Seems my previous post was indigestible.
Is there one specific point you wanted a view on ?
Firstly my direct question about POTENTIAL generation which was related to one of your earlier posts. Just to clear that up.
Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied. By a lot. Indeed since they were apparently modelling to a projected 2030 target date (although they admit to that being challenging) one might suggest that we are already a long way off track with expenditure to match the model.
I thought perhaps you might have a comment about that given your previous observations and your information sources.
The two points seem to be linked so I would guess are part of the same answer.
"
If you have time for a third comment have a quick play with the model and follow the interactive time line to see how well, according to their numbers, generation can satisfy demand. Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values).
" Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values)."
The only thing I have noted is that you have not included them in your post
"Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied."
Link?
A rather shoddy post all round. Good job it's not on a scientific website
Bring back turbobloke. Ok he was completely biased, but at least he could post some dodgy facts once in a while... unlike you
PS Can you put some thought into what you post, or at least something that is factual. I have seen this multiple times from you, your heart speaks whilst your brain is sleeping or actually not working at all. If you need to you can ask a member of family to help out typing your thoughts on here, I am sure they would not mind.
Edited by Gandahar on Monday 24th July 06:17
Gandahar said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
You really are delusional Paddy, you can't power the world with renewables.
Quite right Norway does not exist either, that place running on renewables.
A mirage, a figment of our imagination.
Guess what FAKE Norway does with it's fossil fuels that it does not have to use
"The export value of crude oil, natural gas and condensate in 2016 was about NOK 350 billion. This amounts to approximately 47 % of the total value of Norway’s exports of goods"
That's imaginary too. I just made it all up
You are completely correct.
PS Can you put some thought into what you post, or at least something that is factual. I have seen this multiple times from you, your heart speaks whilst your brain is sleeping or actually not working at all. If you need to you can ask a member of family to help out typing your thoughts on here, I am sure they would not mind.
Edited by Gandahar on Monday 24th July 06:06
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Well, there were two things I thought you might feel a need to comment about.
Firstly my direct question about POTENTIAL generation which was related to one of your earlier posts. Just to clear that up.
Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied. By a lot. Indeed since they were apparently modelling to a projected 2030 target date (although they admit to that being challenging) one might suggest that we are already a long way off track with expenditure to match the model.
I thought perhaps you might have a comment about that given your previous observations and your information sources.
The two points seem to be linked so I would guess are part of the same answer.
If you have time for a third comment have a quick play with the model and follow the interactive time line to see how well, according to their numbers, generation can satisfy demand. Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values).
A search for 'Potential' gave 13 uses . Most were not related to capacity. Firstly my direct question about POTENTIAL generation which was related to one of your earlier posts. Just to clear that up.
Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied. By a lot. Indeed since they were apparently modelling to a projected 2030 target date (although they admit to that being challenging) one might suggest that we are already a long way off track with expenditure to match the model.
I thought perhaps you might have a comment about that given your previous observations and your information sources.
The two points seem to be linked so I would guess are part of the same answer.
If you have time for a third comment have a quick play with the model and follow the interactive time line to see how well, according to their numbers, generation can satisfy demand. Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values).
Solar is on the march with respect to technology increase / efficiency / manufacturing cost reduction - and as seen above there are plans for mass deployment in sunny locations with space - not something Great Britain (thread title has)
Wind - onshore prices are currently better than offshore, however mass deployment in Great Britain is far less achievable (see above the space point) and I mean useable, accessible space - that nimbies and haters can't thwart.
Remember whenever you place Wind turbine - you have to deploy some fairly significant plant, cranage and road access is a limit for the delivery of components for the construction. (plus cabling)
Onshore may be cheaper but the volume required - as in unit volume of turbines makes it unachievable in the UK.
Offshore projects are now being designed with 15MW turbines. Lord only knows how, but they are. These obviously dwarf the 2-3MW units you see onshore, and is where the price will make more gains. One Offshore turbine to produce the same as 6 or more onshore turbines.
Lappeenranta - I have not read, but suspect it is using old data that does not account for this - or does not apply to Great Britain and her shorelines?
It flies in the face of everything the industry is currently saying - from what you have said.
The 'modelling' on the Lappeenranta is not practical for me with my relatively off gird broadband connection....
I see the Government are making shouts today on some of the subject raised on this thread (the worthy ones posts, not the late night aggressive shoutey a
hole type ones)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986
Paddy,
The Lappeennranta paper got a lot of positive green press earlier in the year.
It was produced by what many, including the authors, see as a progressive and forward thinking University at the forefront of Renewables research.
I have posted links several times often with quite direct suggestions that it would be worth reading it.
The work is from late last year. The weather/wind data uses 2005 as I recall.
If such things become obsolete within months then the entire development and planning process is simply guess work, no planning of any meaningful weighting can be applied and we are in a political and social state that is somewhat akin to anarchy and potentially nihilism. No wonder governments seek to avoid open discussions.
That said you are right, we should only be discussing facts for what they are. Not models or possible future outcomes if certain unproven things happen and certainly not unguaranteed "bids" for costs of future contracts which must already be obsolete within weeks of them being accepted - and so may never come to exist at all.
Sorry to hear your broadband is so poor. Brave to you for managing so many posts on PH in such circumstances.
The Lappeennranta paper got a lot of positive green press earlier in the year.
It was produced by what many, including the authors, see as a progressive and forward thinking University at the forefront of Renewables research.
I have posted links several times often with quite direct suggestions that it would be worth reading it.
The work is from late last year. The weather/wind data uses 2005 as I recall.
If such things become obsolete within months then the entire development and planning process is simply guess work, no planning of any meaningful weighting can be applied and we are in a political and social state that is somewhat akin to anarchy and potentially nihilism. No wonder governments seek to avoid open discussions.
That said you are right, we should only be discussing facts for what they are. Not models or possible future outcomes if certain unproven things happen and certainly not unguaranteed "bids" for costs of future contracts which must already be obsolete within weeks of them being accepted - and so may never come to exist at all.
Sorry to hear your broadband is so poor. Brave to you for managing so many posts on PH in such circumstances.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Paddy,
The Lappeennranta paper got a lot of positive green press earlier in the year.
It was produced by what many, including the authors, see as a progressive and forward thinking University at the forefront of Renewables research.
I have posted links several times often with quite direct suggestions that it would be worth reading it.
The work is from late last year. The weather/wind data uses 2005 as I recall.
If such things become obsolete within months then the entire development and planning process is simply guess work, no planning of any meaningful weighting can be applied and we are in a political and social state that is somewhat akin to anarchy and potentially nihilism. No wonder governments seek to avoid open discussions.
That said you are right, we should only be discussing facts for what they are. Not models or possible future outcomes if certain unproven things happen and certainly not unguaranteed "bids" for costs of future contracts which must already be obsolete within weeks of them being accepted - and so may never come to exist at all.
Sorry to hear your broadband is so poor. Brave to you for managing so many posts on PH in such circumstances.
A scant lunchtime Google and search around I can not see what data inputs they based it all on to be honest, and I have found some conflicting reports of the findings.The Lappeennranta paper got a lot of positive green press earlier in the year.
It was produced by what many, including the authors, see as a progressive and forward thinking University at the forefront of Renewables research.
I have posted links several times often with quite direct suggestions that it would be worth reading it.
The work is from late last year. The weather/wind data uses 2005 as I recall.
If such things become obsolete within months then the entire development and planning process is simply guess work, no planning of any meaningful weighting can be applied and we are in a political and social state that is somewhat akin to anarchy and potentially nihilism. No wonder governments seek to avoid open discussions.
That said you are right, we should only be discussing facts for what they are. Not models or possible future outcomes if certain unproven things happen and certainly not unguaranteed "bids" for costs of future contracts which must already be obsolete within weeks of them being accepted - and so may never come to exist at all.
Sorry to hear your broadband is so poor. Brave to you for managing so many posts on PH in such circumstances.
I know you have immersed yourself in to it, and quote it frequently, but to me it is exactly that : Requires immersion - I am just dipping a toe in it.
They refer a lot to the modelling in the paper but not much to the peaks and troughs of the results the model delivers so far as I have read.
But in any case and ignoring the interactive aspect of the results (you could download the Excel file and play with the numbers yourself at home.) the conclusion they have come to is so different from your future view and the way that things are developing in terms of offshore/onshore that I would have thought someone somewhere in the offshore world would have made some observations about it by now.
On the other hand If the industry wanted to minimise the to-and-fro of such a discussion lest it hit the noddy mainstream press and was completely misrepresented, it might be best to just ignore it rather than give it life.
I see the Norwegians have launched the floating turbines. That should be interesting to follow in the coming months.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Offshore projects are now being designed with 15MW turbines. Lord only knows how, but they are. These obviously dwarf the 2-3MW units you see onshore, and is where the price will make more gains. One Offshore turbine to produce the same as 6 or more onshore turbines.
There's a shedload of offshore ones going up off the Sussex coast. I'm conflicted; I don't mind renewables but these are a permanent blot on the horizon...https://www.eonenergy.com/About-eon/our-company/ge...
Gandahar said:
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Hmm.
Seems my previous post was indigestible.
In truth - kind of, and I've been tasked with some new stuff too recently so little spare time to bounce in here.Seems my previous post was indigestible.
Is there one specific point you wanted a view on ?
Firstly my direct question about POTENTIAL generation which was related to one of your earlier posts. Just to clear that up.
Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied. By a lot. Indeed since they were apparently modelling to a projected 2030 target date (although they admit to that being challenging) one might suggest that we are already a long way off track with expenditure to match the model.
I thought perhaps you might have a comment about that given your previous observations and your information sources.
The two points seem to be linked so I would guess are part of the same answer.
"
If you have time for a third comment have a quick play with the model and follow the interactive time line to see how well, according to their numbers, generation can satisfy demand. Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values).
" Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values)."
The only thing I have noted is that you have not included them in your post
"Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied."
Link?
A rather shoddy post all round. Good job it's not on a scientific website
Bring back turbobloke. Ok he was completely biased, but at least he could post some dodgy facts once in a while... unlike you
PS Can you put some thought into what you post, or at least something that is factual. I have seen this multiple times from you, your heart speaks whilst your brain is sleeping or actually not working at all. If you need to you can ask a member of family to help out typing your thoughts on here, I am sure they would not mind.
Edited by Gandahar on Monday 24th July 06:17
I have put some thought into this response so please accept that this is a genuine and considered response.
It seems you still cannot read and comprehend and you entirely miss the links that have been provided and then think you are smart to ask for links. Nor can you resist getting involved in exchanges that are very specifically taking place between two posters. Perhaps you think, in this case, that Paddy will be unable to answer for himself?
But I am sure you think you are smart and to the point and a master of avoiding anything you choose to avoid.
So be it.
I find no basis to agree with you - as you might expect.
Still, PH is a relatively free place to be able to make comments and so you are welcome to partake of your own style of self satisfied keyboard torturing for as long as it amuses you and the PH moderators are not of the opinion that your comments are breaking forum rules.
Based on your posting record to date I have no interest whatsoever in your opinion and it matters nothing to me whether you have any interest in mine. That seems to be one thing we agree about.
I would suggest, for the benefit of the other posters in this thread and to save cluttering the forums in general with further personally focused observations that add nothing to the subject matter of the thread, that we simply stop reading each other's posts.
Based on your previous comments I do not expect you to have any problems adopting this suggestion, assuming I have written it clearly enough for you.
No reply required or requested.
LongQ
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
the conclusion they have come to is so different from your future view and the way that things are developing in terms of offshore/onshore that I would have thought someone somewhere in the offshore world would have made some observations about it by now.
You've seen the section / exert - can you put it my way so I can cut to the chase on that aspect you want my comments on please ?It's a bit more interactive than that but the key point from above is that the outcome of their model, ostensibly for 2030 100% renewables but by their own comments more likely for 2050 at best, comes up with something like 8Gw offshore and 70Gw onshore for the UK fleet as part of a wide area energy trading region if the 100% concept, seemingly being promoted by quite a few European politicians, is to have any chance of working at all.
Even then they make some assumptions about future technologies, as yet undeveloped, being in place and working at large scale.
(The paper sets out to model the whole world but I think we can probably accept that Europe and perhaps Northern Europe alone is a most likely regional partner for energy trading although I see there have been some articles in recent days that have the Mediterranean countries roped in to provide wind generation when northern Europe is not blowing - and vice versa. Apparently if you go that far afield (and throw in some solar for daytime shortfalls) the potential for a more balanced wind (and daytime solar) result is improved - given enough investment and construction work.)
There are many sections where the total output seems to fall below predicted demand for several hours and sometimes several days. And in the interactive presentation it seems that potential to break the grid, unless a huge amount of backup is installed in one form or another, can happen, based on 2005 weather, much more frequently than one might expect even after the model has been freed, ,so it seems, to do whatever is necessary rather than whatever is probable.
Rather than wade though the report at this time (see previously posted links of you want to), or even just the Excel data download, it might be more useful to check with the literature you have access to for any comments (especially industry insider comments) about the report since it came out which, iirc, was late November or early December last year.
My guess is that it would only be worth you spending your personal time to look at the report if the Industry is paying any sort of attention to it.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Hmm.
It's a bit more interactive than that but the key point from above is that the outcome of their model, ostensibly for 2030 100% renewables but by their own comments more likely for 2050 at best, comes up with something like 8Gw offshore and 70Gw onshore for the UK fleet as part of a wide area energy trading region if the 100% concept, seemingly being promoted by quite a few European politicians, is to have any chance of working at all.
If that is the case - its already wildly inaccurate, isn't it ?It's a bit more interactive than that but the key point from above is that the outcome of their model, ostensibly for 2030 100% renewables but by their own comments more likely for 2050 at best, comes up with something like 8Gw offshore and 70Gw onshore for the UK fleet as part of a wide area energy trading region if the 100% concept, seemingly being promoted by quite a few European politicians, is to have any chance of working at all.
Me_previous_page said:
Right now UK is consuming 33GW.
10% happens to be coming from Wind (3GW) - from 5.1GW of operational capacity
A further 5GW is ACTUALLY under construction - so will be online in under 2 years.
a further 10GW is ear marked for imminent consent / construction and will be online before the Nuclear build in 2025?
so there will be 20GW by 2025 offshore.10% happens to be coming from Wind (3GW) - from 5.1GW of operational capacity
A further 5GW is ACTUALLY under construction - so will be online in under 2 years.
a further 10GW is ear marked for imminent consent / construction and will be online before the Nuclear build in 2025?
Onshore has more or less halted.
Wildly inaccurate the model may be but that is the solution it came up with for a path to presumably "cost effective" 100% renewables by 2030 to satisfy the objectives (at least when compared to the weather recorded in 2005) .
One might question the model concept (from several angles perhaps depending upon one's point of view) but not the results that is produces just because they suggest the current direction may be wrong. 2030 is just about far enough ahead to contemplate a change of direction and just a single 20year life cycle for most of the offshore wind.
Such are the joys of models.
But has it raised any comments in the industry?
We're saved! The government is going to change some rules.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986
Lord help us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986
Lord help us.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Well, there were two things I thought you might feel a need to comment about.
Firstly my direct question about POTENTIAL generation which was related to one of your earlier posts. Just to clear that up.
Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied. By a lot. Indeed since they were apparently modelling to a projected 2030 target date (although they admit to that being challenging) one might suggest that we are already a long way off track with expenditure to match the model.
I thought perhaps you might have a comment about that given your previous observations and your information sources.
The two points seem to be linked so I would guess are part of the same answer.
If you have time for a third comment have a quick play with the model and follow the interactive time line to see how well, according to their numbers, generation can satisfy demand. Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values).
A search for 'Potential' gave 13 uses . Most were not related to capacity. Firstly my direct question about POTENTIAL generation which was related to one of your earlier posts. Just to clear that up.
Secondly the ASSUMPTION base on Lappeenranta predictive model that GB wind generation will eventually be mainly ONSHORE NOT OFFSHORE if the overall needs ar to be satisfied. By a lot. Indeed since they were apparently modelling to a projected 2030 target date (although they admit to that being challenging) one might suggest that we are already a long way off track with expenditure to match the model.
I thought perhaps you might have a comment about that given your previous observations and your information sources.
The two points seem to be linked so I would guess are part of the same answer.
If you have time for a third comment have a quick play with the model and follow the interactive time line to see how well, according to their numbers, generation can satisfy demand. Note the number and scale of the shortfall periods (not forgetting that they are averaged per hour rather than spot values).
Solar is on the march with respect to technology increase / efficiency / manufacturing cost reduction - and as seen above there are plans for mass deployment in sunny locations with space - not something Great Britain (thread title has)
Wind - onshore prices are currently better than offshore, however mass deployment in Great Britain is far less achievable (see above the space point) and I mean useable, accessible space - that nimbies and haters can't thwart.
Remember whenever you place Wind turbine - you have to deploy some fairly significant plant, cranage and road access is a limit for the delivery of components for the construction. (plus cabling)
Onshore may be cheaper but the volume required - as in unit volume of turbines makes it unachievable in the UK.
Offshore projects are now being designed with 15MW turbines. Lord only knows how, but they are. These obviously dwarf the 2-3MW units you see onshore, and is where the price will make more gains. One Offshore turbine to produce the same as 6 or more onshore turbines.
Lappeenranta - I have not read, but suspect it is using old data that does not account for this - or does not apply to Great Britain and her shorelines?
It flies in the face of everything the industry is currently saying - from what you have said.
The 'modelling' on the Lappeenranta is not practical for me with my relatively off gird broadband connection....
I see the Government are making shouts today on some of the subject raised on this thread (the worthy ones posts, not the late night aggressive shoutey a
hole type ones)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699986
What's the bearing life on one of these things? How'd you change one out?
When in the lifecycle will those costs be factored into the actual cost of power generation?
How old is the oldest windfarm? What's the design life?
How are these to be decommissioned?
I guess similar questions could be levelled at nuclear energy....
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Well as I recall I had mentioned that as the possible basis for your likely interest in commenting in an earlier post.
Wildly inaccurate the model may be but that is the solution it came up with for a path to presumably "cost effective" 100% renewables by 2030 to satisfy the objectives (at least when compared to the weather recorded in 2005) .
One might question the model concept (from several angles perhaps depending upon one's point of view) but not the results that is produces just because they suggest the current direction may be wrong. 2030 is just about far enough ahead to contemplate a change of direction and just a single 20year life cycle for most of the offshore wind.
Such are the joys of models.
But has it raised any comments in the industry?
Raised any comments? Wildly inaccurate the model may be but that is the solution it came up with for a path to presumably "cost effective" 100% renewables by 2030 to satisfy the objectives (at least when compared to the weather recorded in 2005) .
One might question the model concept (from several angles perhaps depending upon one's point of view) but not the results that is produces just because they suggest the current direction may be wrong. 2030 is just about far enough ahead to contemplate a change of direction and just a single 20year life cycle for most of the offshore wind.
Such are the joys of models.
But has it raised any comments in the industry?
None whatsoever and by your own quick redress- it's wildly inaccurate model.
This was not a prediction of the future per se but rather a "given what we know of current and somewhat likely future technology, what would be an option set that could lead to a way of delivering 100% renewables powered electricity generation world wide" (by 2030 but let's not get too fixated on that date - it just happens to be the date that mad politicians are fixated about for whatever their personal reasons might be.)
IF their modelling is correct for some future point THEN we must assume that the current efforts and the expectations that stem from them are likely wrong OR will mostly have only a 1 generation lifespan.
On the other hand if the modelled conclusion are wrong BUT are still contributing to long term policy planning a lot of time and effort and that strange stuff called money will be misdirected in the one or two decades.
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Hmm.
It's a bit more interactive than that but the key point from above is that the outcome of their model, ostensibly for 2030 100% renewables but by their own comments more likely for 2050 at best, comes up with something like 8Gw offshore and 70Gw onshore for the UK fleet as part of a wide area energy trading region if the 100% concept, seemingly being promoted by quite a few European politicians, is to have any chance of working at all.
If that is the case - its already wildly inaccurate, isn't it ?It's a bit more interactive than that but the key point from above is that the outcome of their model, ostensibly for 2030 100% renewables but by their own comments more likely for 2050 at best, comes up with something like 8Gw offshore and 70Gw onshore for the UK fleet as part of a wide area energy trading region if the 100% concept, seemingly being promoted by quite a few European politicians, is to have any chance of working at all.
Me_previous_page said:
Right now UK is consuming 33GW.
10% happens to be coming from Wind (3GW) - from 5.1GW of operational capacity
A further 5GW is ACTUALLY under construction - so will be online in under 2 years.
a further 10GW is ear marked for imminent consent / construction and will be online before the Nuclear build in 2025?
so there will be 20GW by 2025 offshore.10% happens to be coming from Wind (3GW) - from 5.1GW of operational capacity
A further 5GW is ACTUALLY under construction - so will be online in under 2 years.
a further 10GW is ear marked for imminent consent / construction and will be online before the Nuclear build in 2025?
Onshore has more or less halted.
Wildly inaccurate the model may be but that is the solution it came up with for a path to presumably "cost effective" 100% renewables by 2030 to satisfy the objectives (at least when compared to the weather recorded in 2005) .
One might question the model concept (from several angles perhaps depending upon one's point of view) but not the results that is produces just because they suggest the current direction may be wrong. 2030 is just about far enough ahead to contemplate a change of direction and just a single 20year life cycle for most of the offshore wind.
Such are the joys of models.
But has it raised any comments in the industry?
this isn't a model
New figures published this week by WWF Scotland based on data provided by WeatherEnergy found that the month of June saw wind turbines generate around 1,039,001 MWh (megawatt-hours) of electricity for the National Grid, the distribution network company that runs the UK electricity grid. This amounted to, on average, enough electricity to provide for the electricity needs of 118% of Scottish households, or nearly 3 million homes. Further, wind energy generated enough electricity to supply more than all of Scotland’s national demand for 6 days out of the month of June. ....
Yes I know subsidies make this invalid or something like that....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff