The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Fuel burn tends to be circa 260l/hr at full chat. Which is obviously only used to get to the field and back. They burn Circa 1,400L a day
Fuel (bulk buying obviously) is circa 46p a L at the moment FYFI
Where are you based? Want to put money on your views?
Would you like to come out to sea on one of the dozen plus CTV's I help manage ? From 15m to 22m's
Bring the Custard - I'll give you the lifejacket.
Deal ?
Why do people not listen on PH ?
fife . what bit do you disagree with regarding the weather. i know fuel prices,i know exactly what it feels like being on a 10 metre boat when it gets dark due to big waves putting the lights out (metaphorically speaking) . you aren't putting people on wtg in typical north sea winter weather . how much time do you spend at sea vs managing ? what were your days lost due to weather last year ?Fuel (bulk buying obviously) is circa 46p a L at the moment FYFI
Where are you based? Want to put money on your views?
Would you like to come out to sea on one of the dozen plus CTV's I help manage ? From 15m to 22m's
Bring the Custard - I'll give you the lifejacket.
Deal ?
Why do people not listen on PH ?
i was working on around 500 quid a day fuel, that leaves you 700 quid for crew plus the maintenance costs of the boat to factor in . the last engine change on a mates scallop boat cost 100 k. a propshaft refurb 10 k . boats are expensive to run no matter what they are doing.
i am struggling to see what i can bring custard for or bet on here, and i do like a bet . you are the numbers guy, show me the numbers. the info is out there on wave heights for regions of uk waters. i would imagine you have access to that .you know what wave height you can work in (type makes a difference, long period swell easier to work in that wind driven ,wind over tide scenarios) . we have had a windy summer this year, you should have recent info to go on.
Ali G said:
Well with restrictions to be placed on the internal combustion engine as a means of vehicular propulsion, thereby putting even greater stress on the National Grid, I can see a growing market for household diesel/electric power generation.
Self sufficiency etc.
I rather doubt the ICE generators will be allowed to flourish.Self sufficiency etc.
Sales of large and expensive battery packs however .....
Make your accommodation smaller to facilitate their installation.
Not too bad if you still have a garage - the batteries and stuff can go in there.
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 26th July 19:25
Ali G said:
That's where my car is though!
Oh, I see.
No car.
Yup.Oh, I see.
No car.
The state run charging system (Probably under the local control of the local authority and you know how adept they are at good planning and cost effective money generation schemes) will want to control everything on the premise of safety and security so owning a car seems like a very unlikely option.
Except maybe for the politically oriented top 1%. of the populace who may be permitted the equivalent of the old Russian "Zil" lanes around Moscow.
I'm sure the councilors, no matter how little they really understand, will have enough awareness of the potential to out-Uber Uber by legal control.
All of which would seem to add to the load on the Electricity supply side.
Paddy, given that all your wind turbines provided almost nothing at all last Tuesday, and next to nothing 10 days running solid this July - what is the point?
Yet again they are proven an expensive pointless waste of space.
Your advocacy is inflating energy bills for no reason whatsoever, other than transferring vast wealth from the most vulnerable in society to the richest corporations and individuals.
It doesn't matter how many you build destroying the environment and killing wildlife, there will never be enough to keep the lights on.
You should be utterly ashamed for supporting this scam.
Yet again they are proven an expensive pointless waste of space.
Your advocacy is inflating energy bills for no reason whatsoever, other than transferring vast wealth from the most vulnerable in society to the richest corporations and individuals.
It doesn't matter how many you build destroying the environment and killing wildlife, there will never be enough to keep the lights on.
You should be utterly ashamed for supporting this scam.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
What is required on PH to validate a post as being factual ? ?
If you want to educate as an expert ...Skip the industry acronyms and terminology (or at least provide a translation for the layman) .
Don't cherry pick (or appear to cherry pick) the lowest number you saw last week (for anything) and then make it sound like all deals are done at that price. Most people know that is very unlikely.
Offer the range of charges and, perhaps, explain to at least some extent the complexity of the "deals" being done.
Anything that is highly weather dependent, be it installation activity or maintenance and on land or offshore may well have extremely variable costs. People understand that. Not discussing it as part of the subject on which you are seeking to educate others does your message a disservice.
Light maintenance activity is very likely to be important for extending periods between more costly breakdowns but it unlikely to entirely eliminate them. That is when the real extended expenses come in and the costs will be highest.
Refer to some real and typical deals, preferably with information in the public domain and for which there can be no possibility of "obscured" or understated numbers.
If that is not possible, for whatever reason, don't take it personally when people question the veracity of the claims. Few people with any long term experience as paying consumers are naturally inclined to think a large and complex market, like Energy, is automatically designed to offer a good and balanced cost basis for its customers - especially where Government policy (or lack of it) is a large influence on outcomes.
Tempting as it might be to get a message across that you find personally exciting, never ever fall into the trap of assuming that all of the wondrous things things you read about happening in a particular industry - especially the one you work within - are as real as they are being portrayed and represent a trend that will continue for the foreseeable future. Understand that the majority of people will not know that they should have an interest in what you are telling them (or would be if they listened) and the rest will either accept everything without question because they want it to be so or will question everything because they at least have some level of interest and it would seem to them to be wrong if they did not question things - especially if only one source was providing information.
So, here's another source of information that is a relatively recent academic paper discussing "Vessel charter rate estimation for offshore wind O&M activities".
https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/35403052/Ve...
What further education does this provide for interested parties?
Does it in any way match your own experiences, Paddy, in the current market and at the current activity level?
Are there currently more boats than are really needed? Will that change? If so, when is that likely to happen? What will be the effect?
In the wider scheme of things I'm not personally convinced any of this is a highly significant key driver in the developments. Where there is enough money to be extracted ways around the more evident issue with numbers can always be engineered for a while, sometimes for a very extended while.
Make that period long enough and the issues will have to be accepted since reversal, in the short term, becomes impossibly costly.
(That said, where there are subsequent "money to be made" options "sorting out" a problem, "impossibly costly " is not necessarily a barrier to action. One problem compounded by another.)
Monty Python said:
First, I can't see fission becoming more popular - the costs involved, particularly on the decommissioning/waste side make it prohibitively expensive for a private power company to do. If the government did it, then that would be a different issue. There is a lot of talk around thorium reactors but they are commercially unproven.
Fission is only expensive when it's done by dysfunctional organisations and/or using mediocre designs; duplicating what the french did in between 1970 and 1990 the koreans are banging out a standard design for low cost and doing it to a reasonable schedule. Much like any engineering product it gets cheaper the more of them you build, so why not invite them to build some in the UK? Building 3 or 4 different designs is barking from an economic perspective, that's the main reason the AGR programme cost so much and completely failed to win any export orders, the design was changed so much. It's also skullsplittingly obvious that commerce is incapable of dealing with the length of the payback period, so why dance around creating the inflexible stupidity of strike pricing? Create a state body(lets call it the CEGB mk2) to commission and operate(or once built lease them to utilities to operate) the needed new nuclear generation capacity.Decommissioning 1st and 2nd gen designs has been both expensive and instructive; there is now a wealth of knowledge of how to design and build for minimising cost of decom. Waste storage is a political problem, not an engineering one; in any case the used fuel isn't waste in any meanful sense, it's fuel waiting for someone to build a reactor design that can burn it up fully. Why there is not even a modestly funded marketing campaign to inform the public of how safe UK nuclear power is, how much it has cost(surprisingly little amortised over 60 years), what the alternatives are(clue; it isn't wind or solar) and overturn the factually wrong propaganda used to blacken what is the safest form of electricity generation going.
hidetheelephants said:
Monty Python said:
First, I can't see fission becoming more popular - the costs involved, particularly on the decommissioning/waste side make it prohibitively expensive for a private power company to do. If the government did it, then that would be a different issue. There is a lot of talk around thorium reactors but they are commercially unproven.
Fission is only expensive when it's done by dysfunctional organisations and/or using mediocre designs; duplicating what the french did in between 1970 and 1990 the koreans are banging out a standard design for low cost and doing it to a reasonable schedule. Much like any engineering product it gets cheaper the more of them you build, so why not invite them to build some in the UK? Building 3 or 4 different designs is barking from an economic perspective, that's the main reason the AGR programme cost so much and completely failed to win any export orders, the design was changed so much. It's also skullsplittingly obvious that commerce is incapable of dealing with the length of the payback period, so why dance around creating the inflexible stupidity of strike pricing? Create a state body(lets call it the CEGB mk2) to commission and operate(or once built lease them to utilities to operate) the needed new nuclear generation capacity.Decommissioning 1st and 2nd gen designs has been both expensive and instructive; there is now a wealth of knowledge of how to design and build for minimising cost of decom. Waste storage is a political problem, not an engineering one; in any case the used fuel isn't waste in any meanful sense, it's fuel waiting for someone to build a reactor design that can burn it up fully. Why there is not even a modestly funded marketing campaign to inform the public of how safe UK nuclear power is, how much it has cost(surprisingly little amortised over 60 years), what the alternatives are(clue; it isn't wind or solar) and overturn the factually wrong propaganda used to blacken what is the safest form of electricity generation going.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am bewildered to why - if I offer information - on a subject you are guessing at - you feel the need to challenge it.
I have data for various wind farms. And various amounts of weather days, impact forces on the Fender / TP, motion sickness analysis and like. There is far more to it, and science / performance than "lets take a boat to sea" - but such is the will of a couple of dickheds on here who have previously tried to effectively internet sleuth to niggle me, I am buggered if I am going to share 'my data' .
i tell you what, this dI have data for various wind farms. And various amounts of weather days, impact forces on the Fender / TP, motion sickness analysis and like. There is far more to it, and science / performance than "lets take a boat to sea" - but such is the will of a couple of dickheds on here who have previously tried to effectively internet sleuth to niggle me, I am buggered if I am going to share 'my data' .
head nonsense is getting tiring. i have shown these last posts to a couple of commercial skippers, they are going to get back to me with some input when they stop laughing ,and you reckon i am the dhead.you have just gone on a tirade against what i have posted re costs when i assume costs (like any normal f
king person would you slavering plank)include things like fuel . overall cost we are talking, not magic money tree renewable obfuscation costing methods.you then rant on about i am wrong re the days lost to weather when you yourself told me you operate up to 1.75 hs ,go check what that means in real sea condition terms , slight to moderate, ie, near enough mill pond. just what part of my statement re the weather arfe you challenging ?
post the f
king data then you tool . there isn't anymore to it . it is black and white . is the weather calm enough to transfer a maintenance engineer to a wtg from a boat or not . the question here is how many days did you lose to weather this past summer or last year if you have the data.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You said it not me - so I went to check what it was currently... (which also seems to give huge entertainment to others to draw upon on a day when there is low Renewables)
It was asked a page ago about the maintenance of the Turbines.
I gave some comments / inputs to establish it all happens, and rather than it being accepted, it just gets derailed and challenged and challenged to the point of dullness.
Apologies for any thread derailing - but equally so, why can never factual or knowledgable inputs on this thread, or the comedy 'Politics' one be taken as face value - rather than "well my mate runs a totally different type of vessel in a totally different sea state, doing a totally different thing, with different crews and business model - so you must be wrong" ? ?
What is required on PH to validate a post as being factual ? ?
i know who the dullard is here paddy and it isn't me. my mate will be out working in seas where your big cats will be tied up in dock . there isn't even an argument there and you are now showing up a lack of knowledge of what you speak ,something you readily accuse others of.It was asked a page ago about the maintenance of the Turbines.
I gave some comments / inputs to establish it all happens, and rather than it being accepted, it just gets derailed and challenged and challenged to the point of dullness.
Apologies for any thread derailing - but equally so, why can never factual or knowledgable inputs on this thread, or the comedy 'Politics' one be taken as face value - rather than "well my mate runs a totally different type of vessel in a totally different sea state, doing a totally different thing, with different crews and business model - so you must be wrong" ? ?
What is required on PH to validate a post as being factual ? ?
you are twisting the argument yet again to suit your position. people can clearly see what my position is, i would doubt they can see yours.
LongQ said:
I rather doubt the ICE generators will be allowed to flourish.
Sales of large and expensive battery packs however .....
Make your accommodation smaller to facilitate their installation.
Not too bad if you still have a garage - the batteries and stuff can go in there.
ICE generators are part of government policy; STOR is the ugly consequence of shutting down coal without replacement GWs.Sales of large and expensive battery packs however .....
Make your accommodation smaller to facilitate their installation.
Not too bad if you still have a garage - the batteries and stuff can go in there.
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 26th July 19:25
V8 Fettler said:
Because the professional engineering sector in the UK is fragmented.
The sector participants are pretty cohesive; there's one regulatory body, one decommissioning body, one operator and at the moment one builder. Wrapping a low budget marketing effort around 4 non-competing stakeholders should be about as easy a marketing job as there could be, the hard part is the 3 decades of bks that has been put out by anti-nuclear lobby groups and not challenged in any coherent way by any organisation involved in nuclear power.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
So, here's another source of information that is a relatively recent academic paper discussing "Vessel charter rate estimation for offshore wind O&M activities".
https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/35403052/Ve...
What further education does this provide for interested parties?
Does it in any way match your own experiences, Paddy, in the current market and at the current activity level?
Are there currently more boats than are really needed? Will that change? If so, when is that likely to happen? What will be the effect?
That is the same as you posted the day before.https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/35403052/Ve...
What further education does this provide for interested parties?
Does it in any way match your own experiences, Paddy, in the current market and at the current activity level?
Are there currently more boats than are really needed? Will that change? If so, when is that likely to happen? What will be the effect?
And I commented on, and they still stand.
No it does not reflect the current activity levels.
Yes there is over supply of Ships currently, and of CTV's / O&M Vessels.
Apologies if I missed it. I will at some point check again.
How can a forward looking paper become so out of date so quickly and yet correct in some respects?
If we accept that it can then one has to wonder about the point of doing any sort of analysis at all when it hhas the potential, apparently, to be out of date and not fit for current purpose within such a short period.
If that is the way the market is going then one might conclude that there are no useful facts and figures and the contracts negotiators should all be recruited for the ranks of poker players.
If so then so be it but that's not an operational model that would have me enthusing about the future of the industry with unreserved joy.
My biggest problem with all this is not the power generation we can relatively easily but expensively build more power stations or battery storage etc etc it is the local infrastructure..
Most substations are sized at 2.5kw average per house. So you build 100 houses youe get 250kw, nearest transformer size is 330kw great. If they all had electric cars and plugged in at once the transformer trips..
We have thousands and thousands of transformers which will need increasing, then you don't have space for larger ones.... all the wires form the substation need increasing...
That is the real issue.
Most substations are sized at 2.5kw average per house. So you build 100 houses youe get 250kw, nearest transformer size is 330kw great. If they all had electric cars and plugged in at once the transformer trips..
We have thousands and thousands of transformers which will need increasing, then you don't have space for larger ones.... all the wires form the substation need increasing...
That is the real issue.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff