Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
It's Bloomberg so read it with care.
Offshore renewable jobs in Scotland.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-05-17...
Just for reference.
Offshore renewable jobs in Scotland.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-05-17...
Just for reference.
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Paddy,
Out of interest, especially on the basis of your enthusiasm for the potential worldwide market for the UK industry's knowledge about offshore wind, do you have information about the practical options for installations based on seabed viability, wind strength and potential for connectivity?
If so, how close to the proposed target for electricity generation worldwide would these allow developers to get in, say, the next 30 years based on probably technology advances?
Nothing that "might happen is a miracle occurs".
Ignore the potential for other disruptive technologies appearing during that time.
I note that the 32 turbines mentioned in the DONG press release cover an area of 40 Square Kilometers according to a graphic in the article.
Is this typical?
re : Bold above, I can offer opinion, but not facts.Out of interest, especially on the basis of your enthusiasm for the potential worldwide market for the UK industry's knowledge about offshore wind, do you have information about the practical options for installations based on seabed viability, wind strength and potential for connectivity?
If so, how close to the proposed target for electricity generation worldwide would these allow developers to get in, say, the next 30 years based on probably technology advances?
Nothing that "might happen is a miracle occurs".
Ignore the potential for other disruptive technologies appearing during that time.
I note that the 32 turbines mentioned in the DONG press release cover an area of 40 Square Kilometers according to a graphic in the article.
Is this typical?
For the worldwide goals, I can only offer information on the trends and the projects curves I see ahead.
As for Burbo Bamk extension - 40 sq km.
32 x 8MW, 164m Rotor diameter.
Burbo phase one - 10 sq km
25 x 3.6MW, 107m rotor diameter
Those Square Kilometre facts will be I suspect the 'Consent Area' sold by the crown estate - not necessarily the grid / array spacing.
Maybe the Crown Estates site can offer more on that. I'll try to remember to check later.
I've found nothing better to work with and I wanted to add a comment before too much time passes.
The Crown Estates map and the Aerial photos I have found for Burbo Extension seem to agree, generally, and I would guess that at maximum it might be possible to squeeze another 4 to 6 turbines into the area but only at the very edge on 1.5 sides and from the current layout I would guess there are reasons why that has not happened. It would seem odd to leave a few awkward sections un-populated but the may be a reason that is not simply economics of, perhaps, the max output contracted not requiring the full area.
As with all things we should probably assume that the easiest to develop site in the "windiest" locations are likely to be developed first. So any future benefits from productivity will have to come from technical developments in the devices (reasonably likely and could possibly be accomplished with further cost reductions) or the environments in which devices can be cost effectively deployed will need to be extended. Something like the development of deep sea drilling in the oil Industry if you want to think of a comparison. In other words likely not a help if the objective is to reduce costs.
On the basis of the information you offered above we have the original smaller turbines of Burbo 1 delivering, at plated value, 9MW per sq km and the larger units of Burbo 2 delivering 6.4 MW per sq km.
Burbo 1 started generating in late 2007 and is expected to operate for 20 years on a 22yr lease for the site. So it is at the half way point in its life. It should be interesting to see how things progress over the next ten years. One wonder if there may be some potential to place existing Burbo1 capacity in the Extension area's apparently spare space in advance of decommissioning Burbo1.
Given that the project plated capacity is 90MW if 15MW units are indeed available in the next few years installing 5 or 6 at the extension might be enough to replace Burbo1.
It would also help the output per sq km figure.
If the number of units is constrained by by factors at the site then we should perhaps consider that that, per unit of area, capacity factors may not increase (indeed may not even be maintainable) for future developments. Given the limited locations with satisfactory wind availability for existing technologies that might affect the numbers of units required and of course the costs - in much the same way that more difficult exploitation of oil fields, coal stocks and so on adds to costs.
Two other points come to mind.
The first is that the actual output is still constrained by wind conditions and availability and doubling or tripling the generation capacity alone does no guarantee supply sufficiency. I suspect the effective delivery curve is quite nuanced due to many factors.
Presumably it will be possibly to make an interesting comparison between the two areas.
Secondly the outage risk of larger units means that any down time of a single unit removes greater potential capacity from the system until the unit comes back on line. Nominally that would be about 2.5 times the risk in a straight line assessment but it seem to me that output curves are unlikely to have that sort of relationship in reality due to the technical differences between the units.
With those point in mind it is probably time to re-visit the Lappeenranta University report about the likely requirements for a Europe Wide 100% renewable energy model.
http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-renewable-e...
Links to the original posts that led to this response form the authors can be found in the pre-amble for the post.
The reasons that these matters are important in the Political thread is that Government set notional policy to which an industry and some academics respond with information that further develops whatever political thinking may be going on. Then the circle repeats.
This is both normal for humans and potentially incredibly susceptible to completely misguided advice leading to incomprehensible decision even IF they have been made with a good conscience rather than an eye on the financial trough.
These things happen - think being paid £160 to burn £100 worth of "renewable" wood in Northern Ireland for example. And similar daft ideas elsewhere - daft it you are paying of course, not so daft if being paid.
The Energy Policy of UK governments has, for several years, exhibited (where there has been anything to exhibit) all the signs of committing too much "capital" and tax revenue to chasing an ideal that is not proven for reasons that have more to do with social politics than any absolute and unequivocal necessity.
If that proves to be so in the long term the economic and political fallout could be large and dramatic and likely highly destabilising. I would guess that by that point no one will care much about ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. The reasons would be similar to the reasons that the Dutch economy is not based entirely on the value of Tulip bulbs.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
It's Bloomberg so read it with care.
Offshore renewable jobs in Scotland.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-05-17...
Just for reference.
Starter for ten is the Image caption :Offshore renewable jobs in Scotland.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-05-17...
Just for reference.
"Moray Firth near Inverness, world's largest offshore wind power facility Repower 5M, North Sea, Scotland."
Twaddle.
As for the Trump thing - has it occurred that not many people would have known a thing about the Golf Course / Resort if he hadn't kicked up a fuss.
Free Advertising - it follows his Presidential campaign strategy. Make noise. Be controversial. Get all the Air time in the world.
Aberdeen Bay is by Vattenfall own admission an experimental site to test technology, not to be a huge power source - and the cynic would suggest, to plant a flag in Scotland.
The Politics angle for you : "With the collapse of North Sea oil dragging the Scottish economy toward recession, the push to diversify into renewable energy has heightened resonance, not least politically." is bang on.
The sites / projects are challenging, such is the Geo / Soild and water depth - hence not bee able to get to a price to (confidently) enter the CfD auctions - albeit Moray Firth has gone in this month.
I'm not really interested in the Trump angle - that's a Bloomberg thing to catch the eyes of it's US readership I would think.
However the original projected numbers are likely the result of political influence of some sort on some people somehow and that was the point of adding the article to our discussion of the wider results of potential renewables development strategies - none of which are possible without some from of politically controlled consent.
As far as I am aware Bloomberg is widely regarded as a good "Brand" for information of record although you might note that I did suggest reading the contents of the article with care.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Paddy,
I've found nothing better to work with and I wanted to add a comment before too much time passes.
You want this answering on this thread or the one about Power Generation ? I've found nothing better to work with and I wanted to add a comment before too much time passes.
On the other thread there is, as yet, no obvious post that I can think of that would be a suitable hook for the answer to this. No doubt one will arise.
robinessex said:
Heven't we done this (windy things) Topic to death now ?
It's going to be with us for some years and governed by political considerations about favouring one technology over another based on the way the politicians have been persuaded.The result may or may not be a reliable and effective grid solution for electric power as required to run a modern world.
It may or may not be the (low) cost effective solution to the eventual reduction of CO2 that may or may not eventually be confirmed as a controlling influence over the planet's temperature and as a consequence the ability for humans, inter alia, to continue to exist.
At the moment it seems to be the only game the politicians are seriously considering and supporting and having some oversight of what they are up to is, in my opinion, wise.
Otherwise we might as well give up and allow any old dodgy shyster to screw us without questioning their motives.
It has occurred to me that the younger one is the more likely one is to accept one or other political view (or indeed politicised view to widen the context) without much question. That is probably why quite q few politicians support the idea of reducing the voting age in order to be "inclusive" of those whose lives are likely to be most influenced far into the future by decision being made now. They are also the most likely to accept what they are told without question on matters that do not immediately affect their day to day existence. Policy decisions with a success measurement point 20 years ahead is a fairly meaningless concept when you are not yet 20 years of age. Especially if someone else is paying the bills to keep your Xbox running on demand.
Paddy is faithfully reporting industry numbers and suggesting the costs are coming down.
However not all LCOE figures are low - the headline catcher might be outliers and could be temporary based on commercial decisions made for political influence. Who knows how these numbers are really derived and why?
It would nice to think that they are all well considered and logically based but history suggests otherwise in many cases.
Most of the expensive major decisions made by politicians - nuclear deterrent, HS2, that sort of thing - are of temporary consequence or may indeed never matter at all on the basis that the hope is they will never be deployed.
Power generation, and electricity production in particular, is someone more vital to everyday existence and the ability to run the businesses that keep the economy ticking over. Get that wrong and the whole system could crumble very quickly in a world that has become extremely reliant on readily available electricity for almost everything.
Should we leave this important subject to the politicians without questioning how it is developing?
mybrainhurts said:
robinessex said:
Heven't we done this (windy things) Topic to death now ?
I think we have. Every time I open the thread now, I go into a stupor and my head hits the keyboard.
People keep asking me why I have letters and numbers on my forehead, so please let it end...
That's a novel way to excuse that MBH 4 Kylie tatoo
mybrainhurts said:
robinessex said:
Heven't we done this (windy things) Topic to death now ?
I think we have. Every time I open the thread now, I go into a stupor and my head hits the keyboard.
People keep asking me why I have letters and numbers on my forehead, so please let it end...
Someone needs to provide the lightweight interludes.
Not my forte so if anyone want to step up to the plate I'm all for it.
Maybe we could follow the Coronation Street example - 6 minutes of gloom and doom and conflict, 2 minutes of lightweight banter with humour if possible, 5 minutes of adverts. Then repeat.
"Trump Reportedly Told Close Associates U.S. Will Leave Paris Climate Agreement"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/28/...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/28/...
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
Excellent news if so.
Indeed. Adds an entire new level of credibility to the climate change agreement.You seem to have completely abandoned the Trump thread. Wonder why?
Scientific credibility? No change, the data and sound science are still on Trump's side.
Now that Trump is in the White House the Trump thread(s) seem to be more for dreamers who wish he wasn't there, as per remain dreamers in the brexit thread(s), they're welcome to their/your dreams.
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
Excellent news if so.
Indeed. Adds an entire new level of credibility to the climate change agreement.You seem to have completely abandoned the Trump thread. Wonder why?
Scientific credibility? No change, the data and sound science are still on Trump's side.
Now that Trump is in the White House the Trump thread(s) seem to be more for dreamers who wish he wasn't there, as per remain dreamers in the brexit thread(s), they're welcome to their/your dreams.
I really hope Trump serves a full term, or is impeached not less than a couple of years from now.
He's doing liberals a huge, huge favour. I'm thoroughly enjoying his presidency. I'm starting to think he's a plant from the left. Bravo, yellow man!
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
Excellent news if so.
Indeed. Adds an entire new level of credibility to the climate change agreement.You seem to have completely abandoned the Trump thread. Wonder why?
Scientific credibility? No change, the data and sound science are still on Trump's side.
Now that Trump is in the White House the Trump thread(s) seem to be more for dreamers who wish he wasn't there, as per remain dreamers in the brexit thread(s), they're welcome to their/your dreams.
I really hope Trump serves a full term, or is impeached not less than a couple of years from now.
He's doing liberals a huge, huge favour. I'm thoroughly enjoying his presidency. I'm starting to think he's a plant from the left. Bravo, yellow man!
I said more for (in my view) not wholly for.
Your own brand of dreamery is entirely a matter for you.
Guessing, wishing and hoping in the absence of credible information can be left to true believers and sundry liberals as is their wont and as confirmed by your posts.
robinessex said:
I just hope Trumps wife and daughter aren't running his CC policy !!
I trust you're not suggesting somebody needs to grab them by the climate According to reports, they're managing to soften his language but not change policy. An example being the wording of his EO rolling back Obama silliness, allegedly.
The pointless and dangerous green blob is still facing massive defunding both stateside and internationally via IPCC and beanfeast hot air. Long may it remain so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff