The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Condi]

PRTVR said:

But what when demand goes up and wind goes absent ? on the news there was an article on a electricity cable to Norway, fantastic, we will be reliant on imports of electricity and gas.
But what if the Russians decided to cut our links, yes the nice friendly Russians who didn't think twice about launching a chemical attack on British soil.
Apologies for the computer voice but I think it makes a point.
https://youtu.be/4itz_trrQDY

I dont think it does make a point? We are not reliant on French or Norwegian power and have enough generation capacity here to make up any shortfall if something terrible happens. New interconnectors makes the system more robust, and also means we can utilise assets more economically.

I'm also not sure I buy the argument that Russian subs are active in UK waters without anyone knowing they're there. The UK has a compliment of very advanced hunter-killer subs and while the Russian tech is good, the chances of them operating with impunity around Faslane is tiny.

[turbobloke]

rscott said:

turbobloke said:

not forgetting life cycle emissions from design, construction, maintenance, repair and decomissioning of turbines

How do those compare with the equivalent life cycle emissions of coal, gas & nuclear plants?

Has somebody erroneously claimed that power from coal, gas and nuclear plants is CO2-free? Thought not.

Not to dodge the question...

We'd have a better idea if only the wind industry published timely, full and accurate information. I've been asking 'insiders; for full costs over the past year or two with no joy.

According to a Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report using BWEA data as opposed to independent data, so-called 'low carbon’ technologies have life cycle carbon emissions typically <100gCO2eq/kWh while fossil fuel plants are ~400g (gas) to ~800g (coal) CO2eq/kWh. Queries about the units used can be directed at the aforementioned parliamentary office. Nuclear is marginally better than wind in this regard according to the same source.

As correctly pointed out earlier, unreliables as power sources are nowhere near CO2-free.

[Condi]

turbobloke said:

Has somebody erroneously claimed that power from coal, gas and nuclear plants is CO2-free? Thought not.

Not to dodge the question...

We'd have a better idea if only the wind industry published timely, full and accurate information. I've been asking 'insiders; for full costs over the past year or two with no joy.

According to a Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report using BWEA data as opposed to independent data, so-called 'low carbon’ technologies have life cycle carbon emissions typically <100gCO2eq/kWh while fossil fuel plants are ~400g (gas) to ~800g (coal) CO2eq/kWh. Queries about the units used can be directed at the aforementioned parliamentary office. Nuclear is marginally better than wind in this regard according to the same source.

As correctly pointed out earlier, unreliables as power sources are nowhere near CO2-free.

This research paper from the University of Edinburgh

https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1461/main_...

Says that the life cycle carbon emissions from offshore wind are 7-23g/CO2 per Kwh, (page 37), and that each Kwh of wind power displaces 460-550g of CO2 which would otherwise need to be produced from thermal plants (page 45).

So while they are not CO2 'free', using your own figures they produce less than 1/4 of the CO2 from an efficient gas plant, and using the Edinburgh uni figures produce as little as 1.5% of the CO2 emissions from a gas plant. When carbon has a cost, that saving is huge.

I would further argue that with newer, more efficient, and larger wind turbines that carbon cost is falling rapidly. As we move offshore you can get higher load factors and bigger turbines for similar levels of infrastructure.

[rscott]

Thanks both of you.
So worst case is less than 1/4 of the co2 of coal/gas (turbobloke's figures, although as they only say <100, it's impossible to say any more than that).
The other paper suggests 1/32 - 1/8 of coal/gas.

[rscott]

Turbobloke - Is this the report you're quoting from ? http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBri...

[PRTVR]

Condi said:

PRTVR said:

But what when demand goes up and wind goes absent ? on the news there was an article on a electricity cable to Norway, fantastic, we will be reliant on imports of electricity and gas.
But what if the Russians decided to cut our links, yes the nice friendly Russians who didn't think twice about launching a chemical attack on British soil.
Apologies for the computer voice but I think it makes a point.
https://youtu.be/4itz_trrQDY

I dont think it does make a point? We are not reliant on French or Norwegian power and have enough generation capacity here to make up any shortfall if something terrible happens. New interconnectors makes the system more robust, and also means we can utilise assets more economically.

I'm also not sure I buy the argument that Russian subs are active in UK waters without anyone knowing they're there. The UK has a compliment of very advanced hunter-killer subs and while the Russian tech is good, the chances of them operating with impunity around Faslane is tiny.

The back up for renewables is gas when coal is no more, where do you think the gas comes from, most from Norway and the continent, if the MOD are saying that the Russians are looking at power and gas interconnections who are we to argue, as for not been detectable, in the Mediterranean a few months ago one of our hunter killer subs had a real problem detecting the Russian sub, the game has moved on and we are playing catch up, the truth is we couldn't protect the connections, at the beginning of the year with the beast from the east gas struggled,that was with wind doing its bit and coal working flat out, demand was nearly outstripping supply, my view is we are vulnerable.

[Toltec]

PRTVR said:

The back up for renewables is gas when coal is no more, where do you think the gas comes from, most from Norway and the continent, if the MOD are saying that the Russians are looking at power and gas interconnections who are we to argue, as for not been detectable, in the Mediterranean a few months ago one of our hunter killer subs had a real problem detecting the Russian sub, the game has moved on and we are playing catch up, the truth is we couldn't protect the connections, at the beginning of the year with the beast from the east gas struggled,that was with wind doing its bit and coal working flat out, demand was nearly outstripping supply, my view is we are vulnerable.

Countryfile had a section about fracking at the weekend and they said that people were quite surprised that we were going to need more gas as they thought renewables would replace it.

[Condi]

rscott said:

Thanks both of you.
So worst case is less than 1/4 of the co2 of coal/gas (turbobloke's figures, although as they only say <100, it's impossible to say any more than that).
The other paper suggests 1/32 - 1/8 of coal/gas.

Yes, and then no.

The other paper suggests 7/400 and 23/400 which is not 1/32 -1/8... its more like 1.75/100 and 5.75/100.

Although as I said, the 1/4 figure doesnt look anything like right. You've got huge capital costs to build the thing, and then direct carbon costs of generation. The 1-5% figure looks more right over a lifetime.

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

rscott said:

turbobloke said:

not forgetting life cycle emissions from design, construction, maintenance, repair and decomissioning of turbines

How do those compare with the equivalent life cycle emissions of coal, gas & nuclear plants?

Has somebody erroneously claimed that power from coal, gas and nuclear plants is CO2-free? Thought not.

Not to dodge the question...

We'd have a better idea if only the wind industry published timely, full and accurate information. I've been asking 'insiders; for full costs over the past year or two with no joy.

According to a Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report using BWEA data as opposed to independent data, so-called 'low carbon’ technologies have life cycle carbon emissions typically <100gCO2eq/kWh while fossil fuel plants are ~400g (gas) to ~800g (coal) CO2eq/kWh. Queries about the units used can be directed at the aforementioned parliamentary office. Nuclear is marginally better than wind in this regard according to the same source.

As correctly pointed out earlier, unreliables as power sources are nowhere near CO2-free.

Hmm. The report does indeed quote figures of around 100 for low carbon technologies - solar. It also claims the range for wind turbines to be between 5 and 38, with the larger offshore turbines having the lower values.

That same report puts nuclear at 26..

[Condi]

Just to steer this back to the thread title, here is some of Eon's thoughts about how the future looks.

http://futurepresent.economist.com/the-future-of-e...

[rscott]

Condi said:

rscott said:

Thanks both of you.
So worst case is less than 1/4 of the co2 of coal/gas (turbobloke's figures, although as they only say <100, it's impossible to say any more than that).
The other paper suggests 1/32 - 1/8 of coal/gas.

Yes, and then no.

The other paper suggests 7/400 and 23/400 which is not 1/32 -1/8... its more like 1.75/100 and 5.75/100.

Although as I said, the 1/4 figure doesnt look anything like right. You've got huge capital costs to build the thing, and then direct carbon costs of generation. The 1-5% figure looks more right over a lifetime.

The 1/4 figure is based on the report's value for solar. TB widened the scope from wind turbines to all low carbon sources.

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

Evanivitch said:

turbobloke said:

The percentage is managed by policy, It's still intermittent.

Also it's not CO2 free.

Turbines incorporate rechargeable batteries / 'ultracapacitors' to power their own electrical systems. These consume power from the grid and as you point out the grid is mostly non-wind. Grid power consumption is needed for running equipment including a yaw mechanism (blades), blade-pitch controls; aircraft warning lights, data-collection; oil heaters, pumps, cooling for the gearbox; and hydraulic brakes for locking blades down in windy weather. Turbines in particular locations including the UK also need blade heaters to prevent icing. Add that lot up and you've got 20% of turbine output in round figures and significant CO2 emissions.

Not forgetting life cycle emissions from design, construction, maintenance, repair and decomissioning of turbines, plus CO2 from conventional power stations as backup for when it's either too windy or not windy enough for unreliables to operate. Whether the weather is blowing a gale, becalmed or just right, turbines are not zero emission power producers any more than electric cars are zero emission vehicles.

Reference?

In general he's not wrong, although as usual there is a lot of stretching of the truth and hypothetical situations.

Grid power is used by any station - be that renewable or not - to start. A coal station can be consuming 20MW/hr (!!) to start up all the pumps, mills and fans before it gets anywhere burning coal. Compared with that, a few KW for a wind turbine is neither here nor there, and I would dispute that 20% of a turbine power is consumed by the turbine itself, that seems very very high. I know what our turbines will draw when there is 0 wind, and what their total installed capacity is. The largest draw I've ever seen from the grid is less than 1% of capacity, and for there to be any draw at all is a very rare occurrence.

Equally, we dont have huge numbers of thermal stations running when the wind is high to maintain grid stability. There will always be a bit of excess capacity on the grid somewhere (spinning reserve) - most likely 2 stations running at low load rather than 1 station running at max output - so if the wind does fall its easy to increase supply.

With reference to CO2, you're well aware what I meant and while the carbon costs of construction and decommissioning are sunk costs, there are no direct carbon costs to generation like there are with thermal plants. The generating company will not need to buy carbon credits, as they have to do with coal, gas or oil. The emissions from a turbine over its life cycle are not 'considerable' compared with the life cycle emissions from a thermal plant. Per MW hour of power, the emissions are much much lower.

Edited by Condi on Wednesday 12th September 10:44

With a well-designed grid, coal-fired should run as baseload, so starting from zero rpm should be infrequent.

With a modern coal-fired station, we could have six x 660MW steam turbo-generators and six boilers; to find 20MW to run some pumps, mills and fans isn't going to be an issue.

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

With a well-designed grid, coal-fired should run as baseload, so starting from zero rpm should be infrequent.

With a modern coal-fired station, we could have six x 660MW steam turbo-generators and six boilers; to find 20MW to run some pumps, mills and fans isn't going to be an issue.

But coal doesnt run baseload, and never will again, so there is little point talking about what could happen because you're ignoring reality.


The title of this thread is 'The Future of Power Generation', not 'Power Generation Ideas from 30 years ago'.

[PRTVR]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

With a well-designed grid, coal-fired should run as baseload, so starting from zero rpm should be infrequent.

With a modern coal-fired station, we could have six x 660MW steam turbo-generators and six boilers; to find 20MW to run some pumps, mills and fans isn't going to be an issue.

But coal doesnt run baseload, and never will again, so there is little point talking about what could happen because you're ignoring reality.


The title of this thread is 'The Future of Power Generation', not 'Power Generation Ideas from 30 years ago'.

Wind power goes back even further .....

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

With a well-designed grid, coal-fired should run as baseload, so starting from zero rpm should be infrequent.

With a modern coal-fired station, we could have six x 660MW steam turbo-generators and six boilers; to find 20MW to run some pumps, mills and fans isn't going to be an issue.

But coal doesnt run baseload, and never will again, so there is little point talking about what could happen because you're ignoring reality.


The title of this thread is 'The Future of Power Generation', not 'Power Generation Ideas from 30 years ago'.

Coal was operating as baseload in Feb/March this year.



Prisoners to build coal-fired.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/qld/2018/09/...

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

Coal was operating as baseload in Feb/March this year.

Prisoners to build coal-fired.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/qld/2018/09/...

Coal this year? Yes, it ran solid for 2 months. Baseload to me means 12 month baseload power, like it used to. And coal stations are not necessarily running economically at the moment because they have a limited period of time (some less than 18/24 months) in which to burn through their fuel stocks. There is 2 or 3 gig of coal on at the moment, doesnt change the fact in 5 years time there wont be.

Your example of the future is an Australian mining magnate who is struggling to sell the coal he still has left in the ground, and so wants to build a power station? You've had to look half way round the world to find an example of a country even proposing to build new coal stations? If thats your argument you're really clutching at straws, and it has no relevance at all to this country.

[Evanivitch]

V8 Fettler said:

With a well-designed grid, coal-fired should run as baseload, so starting from zero rpm should be infrequent.

So instead of importing Russian gas and Norwegian electricity, we're importing Columbian and Russian coal? Yes, very stable...

[Evanivitch]

turbobloke said:

As correctly pointed out earlier, unreliables as power sources are nowhere near CO2-free.

Reference?

[StanleyT]

So today we hear at work colleagues at Nugen (Cumbrian new build power station) are getting the axe in the morning and this afternoon we hear that we're getting seconded staff back from the "Big C" project over the next few months and the pick up in work on SMRs isn't happening as it is a "government vanity distraction" from the issues on the GW scale nuke stations? Thank INdra (or your own God of Elect / lighting / thunder for our work on wind farms, gas turbines and balance of plant.......

Anyone think we will really see a new generation of nuclear?

Has wind every on a day generated more electricity than nuclear. I know it has coal. I am fairly certain it hasn't gas.

It was rather strange today to see a "mothballed" SSE eight cooling tower coal station with four cooling towers on full tt, the other four just "lightly steaming" as if their respective turbines had just started a run up post Barring? Why would a coal station be on today - pre winter functional testing?

[PRTVR]

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

With a well-designed grid, coal-fired should run as baseload, so starting from zero rpm should be infrequent.

So instead of importing Russian gas and Norwegian electricity, we're importing Columbian and Russian coal? Yes, very stable...

No we do both, using competition to drive costs down and giving another method of generating electricity, coal can easily be stock piled, instead we have renewables or gas at whatever price is demanded,
shutting down our coal stations achieved nothing, it's a pure symbolic gesture.