The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Gary C]

rscott said:

turbobloke said:

The blackout jury is still out, meanwhile some notes from Dr John Constable GWPF Energy Editor.

Summary
-NG’s version of events is not entirely convincing so far
-the system has been going through 'difficult days'
-Friday 9th was one, and it didn’t end well
-the system frequency trace wasn't quite consistent with the narrative offered and implied
-narrative partly driven by desire to exonerate wind power in general / Hornsea in particular
-at the same time as a Times article on the 16th the DT reported that on the next 2 nights there had been more 'system disturbance' -frequency dropped below operational limits again
-in response the Control Room had made Hornsea reduce output
-Hornsea was paid £100,000 for this, as conventional output was increased
-rather than an ultra-rare one off, problems appeared to be persisting with Hornsea part of those problems
-impact of the blackout story was being weakened by confused and incomplete commentary
-Sunday saw a report in the DT concerning Colin Gibson former Power Networks Director at NG
-together with a former colleague Dr C Aris, CG had raised concerns that National Grid allowed a 'hazardous decline in system inertia'
-and that this decline had resulted from high levels of asynchronous generation
-CG pointed to this as the root of inadequacies leading to the blackout

Constable article:
https://www.thegwpf.com/telling-the-story-of-a-bla...

Related article from 18th August mentioned above:
Former National Grid Director Says Ministers Should Impose Limits on New Wind and Solar Farms to Help Avoid Power Cuts

I see you mention Dr Aris - would you know what his doctorate was in?

Its an interesting article, a mix of supposition and fact with a twist of bias, which is natural for any writer I suppose.

I note the paragraph

" mystery around the overall event, for example regarding National Grid’s preparation for frequency excursions of this kind "

NGC's preparations have been proven to work. They are not responsible for the reduction in stored energy (be it boiler pressure and/or spinning inertia) but their systems protected the wider grid admirably. Embedded generation is particularly difficult for NGC as they dont have to abide by the Operating Conditions the rest of us have to.

I wonder what the outcome will be.

Maybe we need to make the windfarm blades out of lead , that would give some intertia

[StanleyT]

Gary C said:

Maybe we need to make the windfarm blades out of lead , that would give some intertia

I've had this idea, patents pending on the same lines. Lead is bad for the environment so we should stick to nice steels for the turbine blades. However, to get the inertia, rather than air over the turbines, use a heavier density fluid to maintain the inertia. As water is quite readily available I'd suggest that......

1) we need to get the water high enough so it can usefully run down over the turbine blades so perhaps moving a load of water from the base of a tall structure to the top of it, perhaps we should use mountains rather than fabricate new structures.
2) we'd need some way to get this load of water from the base of the mountain to the storage location. This would be done using "base-load" power stations.
3)...ring ring...."Hello, Stan here, can I help"...."Hello, it is the CEGB from the 1960s, can we have our idea back please Stan?".

More serious, I'd heard, but not sure how true this was, that the first overhead DC line over the Pennines (Woodhead rail line) used rheostatic regenerative braking to slow the heavy (ironically) coal trains on either side of the Pennies and that you actually needed brakeing trains on the downhills to boost the available supply for the trains on the uphills when some of the local power stations were out. Could we use regeneratively brake trains and their inertia (125 mph 800 tonnes passenger expresses on the WCML and ECML must have a bit of inertia) to put power back into the gird. Quite a few trains came to a stop before so the energy was going to waste anyway, to try and overcome minute or two blips?

[The3rdDukeofB]

There is an article I read last week of an open mine dump truck that is hybrid, that effectively never needs charging.
The regenerative braking down the mountain loaded creates more energy that it needs to trundle back up empty for its next load.

[anonymous-user]

The3rdDukeofB said:

There is an article I read last week of an open mine dump truck that is hybrid, that effectively never needs charging.
The regenerative braking down the mountain loaded creates more energy that it needs to trundle back up empty for its next load.

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

[s2art]

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

[anonymous-user]

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Ok I thought it was creating energy regardless of what’s on the road as long as there are vibrations and traffic passing over it, regardless of what’s powering the traffic. They’re not driving on the road just to create electricity, it’s just a by product of the roads etc being used.

Or are you saying the methods used to create this electricity are actually using more energy than they’re creating?

Anyway, I thought it was interesting research.

[s2art]

El stovey said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Ok I thought it was creating energy regardless of what’s on the road as long as there are vibrations and traffic passing over it, regardless of what’s powering the traffic. They’re not driving on the road just to create electricity, it’s just a by product of the roads etc being used.

Or are you saying the methods used to create this electricity are actually using more energy than they’re creating?

Anyway, I thought it was interesting research.

The energy for those vibrations and traffic can only come from what is powering the vehicle. Great idea on down ramps or down slopes in general where the energy is wasted as braking. But even there as more vehicles get regenerative braking the idea becomes redundant.

[dickymint]

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

As is "even using the surfaces"

"France’s Solar Road Is a Complete Failure"

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/296951-frances...

[anonymous-user]

dickymint said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

As is "even using the surfaces"

"France’s Solar Road Is a Complete Failure"

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/296951-frances...

From your article though.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/194313-the-net...

Obviously it’s not going to replace solar panels or power stations but I just thought it was interesting research and technology.

[Countdown]

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Is extra fuel being burnt to generate the power or is it the amount that would have been used anyway?

[rscott]

s2art said:

El stovey said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Ok I thought it was creating energy regardless of what’s on the road as long as there are vibrations and traffic passing over it, regardless of what’s powering the traffic. They’re not driving on the road just to create electricity, it’s just a by product of the roads etc being used.

Or are you saying the methods used to create this electricity are actually using more energy than they’re creating?

Anyway, I thought it was interesting research.

The energy for those vibrations and traffic can only come from what is powering the vehicle. Great idea on down ramps or down slopes in general where the energy is wasted as braking. But even there as more vehicles get regenerative braking the idea becomes redundant.

Regenerative braking and vehicle power source make no difference to these technologies though. These are installed in the roads, not the vehicles, and generate the same power whether it's a Tuscan or Tesla going over them. Actually, a Tesla might generate more power, being a heavier vehicle ..

[rscott]

dickymint said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

As is "even using the surfaces"

"France’s Solar Road Is a Complete Failure"

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/296951-frances...

Probably why he said it's research.. no one suggested it was the perfect solution.

[Gary C]

Countdown said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Is extra fuel being burnt to generate the power or is it the amount that would have been used anyway?

The plate going up and down is using some extra energy, but I would have thought much less than a speed hump or any other bump in the road.

[Randy Winkman]

rscott said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Ok I thought it was creating energy regardless of what’s on the road as long as there are vibrations and traffic passing over it, regardless of what’s powering the traffic. They’re not driving on the road just to create electricity, it’s just a by product of the roads etc being used.

Or are you saying the methods used to create this electricity are actually using more energy than they’re creating?

Anyway, I thought it was interesting research.

The energy for those vibrations and traffic can only come from what is powering the vehicle. Great idea on down ramps or down slopes in general where the energy is wasted as braking. But even there as more vehicles get regenerative braking the idea becomes redundant.

Regenerative braking and vehicle power source make no difference to these technologies though. These are installed in the roads, not the vehicles, and generate the same power whether it's a Tuscan or Tesla going over them. Actually, a Tesla might generate more power, being a heavier vehicle ..

Yes, is s2art looking for problems where they don't exist?

[Countdown]

Gary C said:

Countdown said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Is extra fuel being burnt to generate the power or is it the amount that would have been used anyway?

The plate going up and down is using some extra energy, but I would have thought much less than a speed hump or any other bump in the road.

But surely that energy was going to go into the road anyway, it's just being absorbed by the Plate? Do cars use more fuel when travelling on these roads?

[turbobloke]

Gary C said:

Countdown said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Is extra fuel being burnt to generate the power or is it the amount that would have been used anyway?

The plate going up and down is using some extra energy, but I would have thought much less than a speed hump or any other bump in the road.

Using the surfaces...

Solar Roads: Another Government-Funded Energy Failure
Government-backed technological endeavours have been a disaster.
Friday, August 23, 2019
https://fee.org/articles/solar-roads-another-gover...

Costly piezoelectric tarmac on 24/7 very busy roads, that could power a traffic light or three.

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

Gary C said:

Countdown said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Is extra fuel being burnt to generate the power or is it the amount that would have been used anyway?

The plate going up and down is using some extra energy, but I would have thought much less than a speed hump or any other bump in the road.

Using the surfaces...

Solar Roads: Another Government-Funded Energy Failure
Government-backed technological endeavours have been a disaster.
Friday, August 23, 2019
https://fee.org/articles/solar-roads-another-gover...

Costly piezoelectric tarmac on 24/7 very busy roads, that could power a traffic light or three.

Any comment on the system mentioned in the original link which was a success?

[turbobloke]

rscott said:

turbobloke said:

Gary C said:

Countdown said:

s2art said:

El stovey said:

That’s a great use of technology. There’s also a lot of research going into using traffic or the roads themselves to create electricity through traffic driving over them or even using the surfaces.

https://www.smartcitylab.com/blog/urban-environmen...

But that is a pretty awfully inefficient way of genererating power. Essentially its burning fuel at maybe 30% or less thermodynamic efficiency, and then adding even more losses in converting vehicle movement into electricity.

Is extra fuel being burnt to generate the power or is it the amount that would have been used anyway?

The plate going up and down is using some extra energy, but I would have thought much less than a speed hump or any other bump in the road.

Using the surfaces...

Solar Roads: Another Government-Funded Energy Failure
Government-backed technological endeavours have been a disaster.
Friday, August 23, 2019
https://fee.org/articles/solar-roads-another-gover...

Costly piezoelectric tarmac on 24/7 very busy roads, that could power a traffic light or three.

Any comment on the system mentioned in the original link which was a success?

As in, keep the perspective out of balance? Not a good idea, look what it's leading to.

[turbobloke]

Given the fawning over renewables there's certainly room for these comments from the FEE link (aiming for better balance):

• two scholars Linda Cohen and Roger Noll found that “American political institutions introduce predictable systematic biases to R&D programs"
• the result us that on balance, government projects will be susceptible to performance under-runs and cost over-runs.
• this trend is particularly evident in the billions of dollars in subsidies showered on wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles

Dreamworlds are like that stateside and over here as well.

[hidetheelephants]

vonuber said:

Gadgetmac said:

He won’t respond, he just jumps from posting one soundbite taken from Breitbart, the GWPF, the Heartland Institute etc to the next.

Call him out on it and he says its an ad hom.

It’s just Spam, he’s so obviously in the pay of some interested concern or another.

You do have to wonder who it is (paying for) behind the majority of AGW stuff.

One of them died the other day; His brother might not last much longer either but I suspect they'll leave a big fat trust fund to keep all the yahoo ideologues well paid for extolling the virtues of fking up the environment for profit. Short of demolishing the freedom of speech there's not much to be done about the straightforward shilling, but campaign finance reform and reform of political donations generally can't come soon enough for the influence peddling.