The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
PRTVR said:
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.
So instead of having wind with backup, we're going to have two conflicting power solutions, neither able to operate at maximum capacity? Makes no sense.shutting down our coal stations achieved nothing, it's a pure symbolic gesture.
Easy stockpiling of coal is a myth. Coal stockpiles are a visual blight and health disaster to local communities.
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-storage-coal-threate...
rscott said:
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?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.
That same report puts nuclear at 26..
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2002/10/24/we-know...
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2002/11/08/we-know...
The link to the original BWEA slide doesn't work but I've posted a copy previously.
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2002/11/08/we-know...
The link to the original BWEA slide doesn't work but I've posted a copy previously.
Condi said:
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. Prisoners to build coal-fired.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/qld/2018/09/...
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.
The Australian example symbolises change, perhaps the prisoners have seen the light, their new PM is known for supporting coal
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
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?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.
That same report puts nuclear at 26..
The report states clearly that the data is peer reviewed (and indeed even flags up the one wind turbine figure which isn't) and from multiple sources.
rscott said:
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
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?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.
That same report puts nuclear at 26..
The report states clearly that the data is peer reviewed (and indeed even flags up the one wind turbine figure which isn't) and from multiple sources.
I originally replied to a post claiming zero CO2 for turbines contributing to the UK grid. You twisted the point by asking an irrelevant question around fossil fuel powered stations (which were not under discussion at the time) but then confirmed my point with the number you supplied for wind from the parliamentary document I cited...because the number wasn't zero. In contrast I haven't twisted anything, I've shown what I said was correct and you helped me to do so, thanks.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 13th September 08:10
Consider the mixed feelings on this over at the pro-EU / climate hysterical Indy, then marvel as a clear winner emerges
Europe’s Renewable Energy Strategy Will Destroy Forests, Boost CO2 Emissions and Harm Climate, Scientists Warn
Leading climate scientists have denounced the EU decision to push wood as a 'renewable' energy source
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-e...
turbobloke said:
Consider the mixed feelings on this over at the pro-EU / climate hysterical Indy, then marvel as a clear winner emerges
Europe’s Renewable Energy Strategy Will Destroy Forests, Boost CO2 Emissions and Harm Climate, Scientists Warn
Leading climate scientists have denounced the EU decision to push wood as a 'renewable' energy source
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-e...
Interesting how you now believe Climate Scientists when they're on 'your' side isn't it.Europe’s Renewable Energy Strategy Will Destroy Forests, Boost CO2 Emissions and Harm Climate, Scientists Warn
Leading climate scientists have denounced the EU decision to push wood as a 'renewable' energy source
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-e...
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Consider the mixed feelings on this over at the pro-EU / climate hysterical Indy, then marvel as a clear winner emerges
Europe’s Renewable Energy Strategy Will Destroy Forests, Boost CO2 Emissions and Harm Climate, Scientists Warn
Leading climate scientists have denounced the EU decision to push wood as a 'renewable' energy source
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-e...
Interesting how you now believe Climate Scientists when they're on 'your' side isn't it.Europe’s Renewable Energy Strategy Will Destroy Forests, Boost CO2 Emissions and Harm Climate, Scientists Warn
Leading climate scientists have denounced the EU decision to push wood as a 'renewable' energy source
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-e...
I'm merely reporting what the Indy has said and I take what any climate scientist says at face value with no "belief" involved, that's a pro-agw trait as you must surely know.
Well fancy that, burning lots of wood risks destroying forests. Is this because the wood comes from trees and the trees frequently grow together at locations known as forests? The power of logic!
Next thing is that the wonderful scientists will be telling us that the burning of wood increases pollution.
Next thing is that the wonderful scientists will be telling us that the burning of wood increases pollution.
turbobloke said:
Gove wants to ban sales of wet wood for use in stoves. That man has a finger on the pulse of the planet.
Personally I don't think wood burners should ever have been allowed in urban areas - coal fires were banned in these areas for a reason.
alangla said:
turbobloke said:
Gove wants to ban sales of wet wood for use in stoves. That man has a finger on the pulse of the planet.
Personally I don't think wood burners should ever have been allowed in urban areas - coal fires were banned in these areas for a reason.
Is he going to fund a small army of people with strips of anhydrous cobalt chloride paper, visiting sales outlets (how will they know?) and demanding entry into homes to check for a burner and test their logs (again how will they know)?
Does he think a wet market (black market) in logs won't operate the minute his brainwave is signed off?
I haven't read anything from any politiician that demonstrates any realistic understanding of the real threat to health from air quality, which is indoor air. The air in the average UK/USA building is ten times polluted than outdoor urban air, and there are nasties in both. This is based on data colleced by the BRE (UK) and EPA (USA). In the UK people spend over 90% of their time indoors. Three-quarters of children spend less time outdoors than prisoners.
Pollution: prioritisation and practicality matter (when funds aren't infinite)
V8 Fettler said:
Coal-fired in the UK doesn't stockpile months in advance, I doubt if current stocks would exceed two weeks.
The Australian example symbolises change, perhaps the prisoners have seen the light, their new PM is known for supporting coal
But UK companies can buy coal for delivery months and years in advance, without taking physical delivery until closer to the time. The Australian example symbolises change, perhaps the prisoners have seen the light, their new PM is known for supporting coal
The Australian example is someone who owns a coal mine, very desperate to find some way of getting value from the billions of dollars he paid for the mine, at time when demand is falling and his product is becoming increasingly difficult to sell. Thats the only reason he wants to build a power station. While their new PM is known for supporting coal, the rate Australia go through PM's (and remember he was never elected as PM), he'll be well gone before anyone puts a spade in the ground.
Condi said:
V8 Fettler said:
Coal-fired in the UK doesn't stockpile months in advance, I doubt if current stocks would exceed two weeks.
The Australian example symbolises change, perhaps the prisoners have seen the light, their new PM is known for supporting coal
But UK companies can buy coal for delivery months and years in advance, without taking physical delivery until closer to the time. The Australian example symbolises change, perhaps the prisoners have seen the light, their new PM is known for supporting coal
The Australian example is someone who owns a coal mine, very desperate to find some way of getting value from the billions of dollars he paid for the mine, at time when demand is falling and his product is becoming increasingly difficult to sell. Thats the only reason he wants to build a power station. While their new PM is known for supporting coal, the rate Australia go through PM's (and remember he was never elected as PM), he'll be well gone before anyone puts a spade in the ground.
Probably not a fashionable thing to do though in a 'just in time' private industry.
Evanivitch said:
Condi said:
But UK companies can buy coal for delivery months and years in advance, without taking physical delivery until closer to the time.
I'd assume they'd have to as they are shipping coal from Columbia, Russia and Australia.Condi said:
V8 Fettler said:
Coal-fired in the UK doesn't stockpile months in advance, I doubt if current stocks would exceed two weeks.
The Australian example symbolises change, perhaps the prisoners have seen the light, their new PM is known for supporting coal
But UK companies can buy coal for delivery months and years in advance, without taking physical delivery until closer to the time.The Australian example symbolises change, perhaps the prisoners have seen the light, their new PM is known for supporting coal
The Australian example is someone who owns a coal mine, very desperate to find some way of getting value from the billions of dollars he paid for the mine, at time when demand is falling and his product is becoming increasingly difficult to sell. Thats the only reason he wants to build a power station. While their new PM is known for supporting coal, the rate Australia go through PM's (and remember he was never elected as PM), he'll be well gone before anyone puts a spade in the ground.
The wake-up call for the prisoners was probably grid issues in South Australia.
The wake-up call for the UK should have been the gas deficit warning in March 2018.
Clean-burn coal cheaper than renewables and gas in Australia https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff