The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Fortunately, I am not blinkered by the trough that you are snuffling from.
If you expect that there will be a fail-safe backup to intermittent renewables that renewables inc will not be paying for, then La-La land welcomes you!
And it won't be fossil-fueled backup - that's on the naughty step.
If you expect that there will be a fail-safe backup to intermittent renewables that renewables inc will not be paying for, then La-La land welcomes you!
And it won't be fossil-fueled backup - that's on the naughty step.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Your car has an engine of 200hp ?
Do you drive around using 200hp all the time ?
A more serious response ....Do you drive around using 200hp all the time ?
Actually mine has 250bhp (allegedly).
But it's very old and so it's worth maybe £1k on a good day. Probably costs about half of that per annum on average in repairs and the same again on servicing, more or less. Plus, of course, fossil fuel costs.
In that context I suppose it's a bit like a coal fired power station other than the exhaust output still qualifying for use in London.
The amount of power available is, at least for the UK, absurd and unusable 99% of the time. But then I can switch it to non-sport mode and match it more closely to the prevailing traffic jams with lower output.
An equivalent market placing today would probably have 350 to 400bhp.
Ludicrous. So why do manufacturers keep making them and why do people keep buying them?
Why is Tesla so fixated about performance over distance?
Potentially, despite not being a really simple car in historic reference terms, I can at least still obtain parts for it and find people to fix it. Major Electronic components cost hundreds not thousands. The cost of ownership, despite its age, will be far less than any of the newer vehicles that are more or less equivalent and which are also likely to be unfixable at almost any price when they start to fail.
So my "coal fired" transport may well last 20 years or more. A modern "renewable" vehicle is probably far from renewable and may last 10 years before it becomes uneconomic. It's a design life thing. Traditional FF and Nuclear - 40 to 60 years if allowed to operate.
Wind? 25 to 30 perhaps then replace everything? Oh well, maybe everything will indeed be so cheap by then that replacement becomes feasible without killing the economy.
Solar? Much like wind only cheaper and, to some extent, a little more predictable.
The investment waste in modern personal transport is enormous. At some point that will change, probably because of a more pressing need to find ways of paying for energy and a less pressing need to travel so much. Pushing wind and solar generation almost certainly moves people in that direction.
IMO.
And of course I am relying on humanity globally to accept and embrace the need to unify everything and do as it is told by its politicians and planners, most of whom seem to be promoting only one solution whilst paying lip service to "choice" and "balanced solutions" and "competitive tendering".
Late to this thread but had a very interesting chat with a friend who is in the "Home energy monitor" game...
He is insistent that the only reason the gov is pushing all to have it installed is so they can monitor all the power you use and it is irrelevant where it comes from you pay from whatever you use even if you generate it yourself (wind/solar etc...).
In the same way, he thinks that once we all have electric cars we will pay per mile to compensate for the tax loss on petrol/diesel.
He is insistent that the only reason the gov is pushing all to have it installed is so they can monitor all the power you use and it is irrelevant where it comes from you pay from whatever you use even if you generate it yourself (wind/solar etc...).
In the same way, he thinks that once we all have electric cars we will pay per mile to compensate for the tax loss on petrol/diesel.
Ali G said:
Are you referring to Musk's big battery?
Let us know if you consider this to be in any way a 'solution'.
Big battery is working well supporting unreliable coal actually.Let us know if you consider this to be in any way a 'solution'.
Link
There are now calls for current fossil fuel powered stations to be held to the same level of reliability standards as renewables.
Wayoftheflower said:
Big battery is working well supporting unreliable coal actually.
Link
There are now calls for current fossil fuel powered stations to be held to the same level of reliability standards as renewables.
Somewhere through the looking glass - there may be a white rabbit.Link
There are now calls for current fossil fuel powered stations to be held to the same level of reliability standards as renewables.
Were you looking to provide a convincing basis for discussion?
Ali G said:
Wayoftheflower said:
Big battery is working well supporting unreliable coal actually.
Link
There are now calls for current fossil fuel powered stations to be held to the same level of reliability standards as renewables.
Somewhere through the looking glass - there may be a white rabbit.Link
There are now calls for current fossil fuel powered stations to be held to the same level of reliability standards as renewables.
Were you looking to provide a convincing basis for discussion?
rscott said:
Ali G said:
Wayoftheflower said:
Big battery is working well supporting unreliable coal actually.
Link
There are now calls for current fossil fuel powered stations to be held to the same level of reliability standards as renewables.
Somewhere through the looking glass - there may be a white rabbit.Link
There are now calls for current fossil fuel powered stations to be held to the same level of reliability standards as renewables.
Were you looking to provide a convincing basis for discussion?
What might that lead to?
As before, accurate descriptions aren't personal attacks, for tips on personal stuff like that you need to see Paddy's back catalogue.
Then there are 'not happening no more' subsidies
Duh.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
What are the EROI numbers associated with the next phase of Offshore Wind - 15MW turbines in 2.4GW sites?
All I can see on the internet is old data, out-dated data.
Equivalent to Offshore Wind generating at a LCOE of £127 MWh
What are the numbers associated with the technologies of a LCOE of £57 MWh ?
(all you bang on about is EROI - so you should have all this to hand)
Intermittency sorted yet Paddy?All I can see on the internet is old data, out-dated data.
Equivalent to Offshore Wind generating at a LCOE of £127 MWh
What are the numbers associated with the technologies of a LCOE of £57 MWh ?
(all you bang on about is EROI - so you should have all this to hand)
There's quite a lot of info on-line for Rampion - which is a rather an impressive construction.
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rampion-o...
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rampion-o...
Ali G said:
There's quite a lot of info on-line for Rampion - which is a rather an impressive construction.
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rampion-o...
Interesting numbers.http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rampion-o...
400mw for 2bn against Hinckley C of 3260mw for 20bn, suprisingly close just on nameplate capacity (ie 8 times the nameplate for 10 times the cost) but when you consider yearly output will be ~40% against Hinckleys ~80% you get about 16 times the output for 10 times the cost, and that the farm has an expected lifespan of 25 years whereas Hinckley C is 60 years.
Of course, we don't know the final cost of Hinckley yet (but I know a man who has a good idea)
Indeed - factor in Carillion for Rampion too (not sure about Hinckley) and matters may become interesting although hopefully that stage has been completed
Not much mention of how much intermittency is to be expected, although expect around 30-40% of plated capacity average output making a headline 140MW a little less shiny.
Not much mention of how much intermittency is to be expected, although expect around 30-40% of plated capacity average output making a headline 140MW a little less shiny.
Gary C said:
Ali G said:
There's quite a lot of info on-line for Rampion - which is a rather an impressive construction.
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rampion-o...
Interesting numbers.http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rampion-o...
400mw for 2bn against Hinckley C of 3260mw for 20bn, suprisingly close just on nameplate capacity (ie 8 times the nameplate for 10 times the cost) but when you consider yearly output will be ~40% against Hinckleys ~80% you get about 16 times the output for 10 times the cost, and that the farm has an expected lifespan of 25 years whereas Hinckley C is 60 years.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff