The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[rolando]

HairyPoppins said:

The point I'm making is that all forms of energy extraction or creation and storage are inherently dangerous - some much-much more so than others.

Wind farms are much further down the scale than the likes of Coal, Oil and Nuclear.

Law of conservation of energy: energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

[Ali G]

HairyPoppins said:

The point I'm making is that all forms of energy extraction or creation and storage are inherently dangerous - some much-much more so than others.

Wind farms are much further down the scale than the likes of Coal, Oil and Nuclear.

Aye, no disagreement there.

There may be discussions to be had as to the balance between risk/reward and how measures taken may mitigate against risk.

It's an ancient tale, as ancient as homo sapiens.

[HairyPoppins]

rolando said:

HairyPoppins said:

The point I'm making is that all forms of energy extraction or creation and storage are inherently dangerous - some much-much more so than others.

Wind farms are much further down the scale than the likes of Coal, Oil and Nuclear.

Law of conservation of energy: energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

Yes, I know. I was speaking loosely.

[silentbrown]

HairyPoppins said:

Wind farms are much further down the scale than the likes of Coal, Oil and Nuclear.

Indeed. Here's a less shouty summary of the incident. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2017/11/11/brand-bij-...

I think I've had bonfires that smoked worse than that...

[HairyPoppins]

silentbrown said:

HairyPoppins said:

Wind farms are much further down the scale than the likes of Coal, Oil and Nuclear.

Indeed. Here's a less shouty summary of the incident. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2017/11/11/brand-bij-...

I think I've had bonfires that smoked worse than that...

[V8 Fettler]

rolando said:

Here you can see with your own eyes what is and is not keeping the lights on. Certainly not wind.

Coal: flat out;
Nuclear: flat out;
CCGT: flat out;
Wind: flat on its face.

Source

…and people really believe wind is the future?

4 x coal-fired Drax would be useful as a short term fix

[alangla]

Found this last night - https://www.nationalgrid.com/sites/default/files/d... - worth a read.

Short version - National Grid reckon there's more spare capacity this winter than last & more gas available per day than was supplied on the heaviest demand day on record. Page 20 is probably the most interesting. The gap between capacity and Average Cold Spell demand looks OK, but if it's another very cold, very still few days there could be problems. Also page 32 talks about the effects of Merkel's rush away from nuclear & lignite to wind in Germany.

[PRTVR]

It's interesting that they talk of the unknown weather demand, even though the last two winters have been mild, over the last few days the French interconnection has been maxed out flowing to France, France appears to be taking electricity from around Europe, problems with some power plants?

[silentbrown]

PRTVR said:

Over the last few days the French interconnection has been maxed out flowing to France, France appears to be taking electricity from around Europe, problems with some power plants?

This, probably. https://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFL8N1...

"French utility EDF delays Tricastin reactors restart to early December"

[durbster]

rolando said:

Here you can see with your own eyes what is and is not keeping the lights on. Certainly not wind.

Coal: flat out;
Nuclear: flat out;
CCGT: flat out;
Wind: flat on its face.

Source

…and people really believe wind is the future?

If you look on your energy bill, it'll tell you the UK averages:

Coal	8.5%
Natural Gas	44.1%
Nuclear	21%
Renewables	24.2%
Other fuels	2.2%

Source: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS)

[MYOB]

durbster said:

If you look on your energy bill, it'll tell you the UK averages:

Coal	8.5%
Natural Gas	44.1%
Nuclear	21%
Renewables	24.2%
Other fuels	2.2%

Source: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS)

Renewables is more than just wind. Biomass etc is lumped in with that figure.

[turbobloke]

MYOB said:

durbster said:

If you look on your energy bill, it'll tell you the UK averages:

Coal	8.5%
Natural Gas	44.1%
Nuclear	21%
Renewables	24.2%
Other fuels	2.2%

Source: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS)

Renewables is more than just wind. Biomass etc is lumped in with that figure.

Yes indeed, wind, wave, marine, hydro, biomass and solar are all in there. Biomass accounts for around 10% so not that far off half the claimed total.

[Gary C]

silentbrown said:

PRTVR said:

Over the last few days the French interconnection has been maxed out flowing to France, France appears to be taking electricity from around Europe, problems with some power plants?

This, probably. https://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFL8N1...

"French utility EDF delays Tricastin reactors restart to early December"

The Carbon segregation issue has cost us a fair bit

And having to repair a dyke really takes the biscuit

Edited by Gary C on Saturday 18th November 17:18

j

Edited by Gary C on Saturday 18th November 17:43

[durbster]

MYOB said:

Renewables is more than just wind. Biomass etc is lumped in with that figure.

Yep, I assumed that went without saying.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

MYOB said:

Renewables is more than just wind. Biomass etc is lumped in with that figure.

Yep, I assumed that went without saying.

But your reply did not address the figures show, or the need for 100% back up from a proper power station for the times the wind is not blowing or is too strong, then there is the question of who pays for the back up? Some will say the answer is to have more turbines but over the last ten years the numbers had increased massively but the problem remains.

[silentbrown]

PRTVR said:

But your reply did not address the figures show, or the need for 100% back up from a proper power station for the times the wind is not blowing or is too strong, then there is the question of who pays for the back up? Some will say the answer is to have more turbines but over the last ten years the numbers had increased massively but the problem remains.

The French have recently shut down almost 4GW of nuclear generation at Tricastin - see posts above). (None of the lights have gone off, last I heard.)

There's no such thing as 100% availability from anything. It's just statistics, and grid managers have been dealing with variability of both supply and demand since the industry began.

The answer is *always* a mix of sources, and not to be reliant on any one. You wouldn't power an entire country with just a single massive nuclear station, and -for the same reason- you won't *just* use wind, or solar. (or anything else that you only have a single source for the fuel for: a power system based 100% on Russian gas imports won't end well, for example).

Getting the mix right is the key, and I hope there are smarter people than you or me involved in those decisions. Given that we're not being plunged into darkness regularly, then answer appears to be Yes, there are.

[Gary C]

silentbrown said:

PRTVR said:

But your reply did not address the figures show, or the need for 100% back up from a proper power station for the times the wind is not blowing or is too strong, then there is the question of who pays for the back up? Some will say the answer is to have more turbines but over the last ten years the numbers had increased massively but the problem remains.

The French have recently shut down almost 4GW of nuclear generation at Tricastin - see posts above). (None of the lights have gone off, last I heard.)

There's no such thing as 100% availability from anything. It's just statistics, and grid managers have been dealing with variability of both supply and demand since the industry began.

The answer is *always* a mix of sources, and not to be reliant on any one. You wouldn't power an entire country with just a single massive nuclear station, and -for the same reason- you won't *just* use wind, or solar. (or anything else that you only have a single source for the fuel for: a power system based 100% on Russian gas imports won't end well, for example).

Getting the mix right is the key, and I hope there are smarter people than you or me involved in those decisions. Given that we're not being plunged into darkness regularly, then answer appears to be Yes, there are.

Your right, but I haVe never known the grid to be as unstable as it is now. We could awalys set the clock by mvar instructions but now they come at any time of the day or night.

[LongQ]

silentbrown said:

The French have recently shut down almost 4GW of nuclear generation at Tricastin - see posts above). (None of the lights have gone off, last I heard.)

There's no such thing as 100% availability from anything. It's just statistics, and grid managers have been dealing with variability of both supply and demand since the industry began.

The answer is *always* a mix of sources, and not to be reliant on any one. You wouldn't power an entire country with just a single massive nuclear station, and -for the same reason- you won't *just* use wind, or solar. (or anything else that you only have a single source for the fuel for: a power system based 100% on Russian gas imports won't end well, for example).

Getting the mix right is the key, and I hope there are smarter people than you or me involved in those decisions. Given that we're not being plunged into darkness regularly, then answer appears to be Yes, there are.

That's what the population of South Australia assumed. They seem to have discovered otherwise.

However for many of them that assumption has turned out to be less than correct and it is reported that they are having to pay the highest prices for electricity known in Australia.

Remember too that the main lobbyists in the "eliminate "carbon"" pressure groups all assume that a 100% renewable - no coal, no gas, no oil - is entirely feasible with 15 to 30 years (although a few have reservations about the 15 year push) and are usually against nuclear too.

So that leaves solar, wind, small amounts of bio-gas perhaps and any number of miracle products that might suddenly appear.

You know that's not a great assumption when making policy decisions because you have some understanding of the need for alternative sources. So in principle you recognise that the 100% renewable policy objective is likely to be a foolish option to accept as the basis for policy at the moment.

To assume that our great leaders understand that as well is a stretch. Even if they do, to expect them to adhere to the principle of a mixed supply (or indeed any principle at all, or so it seems these days) would likely be an act of faith not unlike that of the good voters of South Australia.

What would happen if the ONS at some future point comes up with stats that have 40k people dying over a winter due to lack of or unaffordable "energy"?

Politicians can duck the responsibility they might have for the decision about policy that allowed the blame for 40k early deaths to be allegedly associated with diesel powered cars. They can blame that on others - the preceding VW fiasco being a great hook on which to hang that hat. And of course the potential to increase taxation and charges is far too attractive to miss because they can claim that they are being forced to do so for the national good.

Who are they going to blame for poor energy policy and its delivery? Or will they work on the basis that (most) corpses don't vote so they don't matter? Will they simply blame anyone but themselves and justify every increasing energy costs on being for the national good?

It would be a dumb population that allowed that to happen without questioning.

But if that was to happen, no questions asked, the population, taken as a whole, would likely deserve whatever eventually came to pass.

[PRTVR]

silentbrown said:

PRTVR said:

But your reply did not address the figures show, or the need for 100% back up from a proper power station for the times the wind is not blowing or is too strong, then there is the question of who pays for the back up? Some will say the answer is to have more turbines but over the last ten years the numbers had increased massively but the problem remains.

The French have recently shut down almost 4GW of nuclear generation at Tricastin - see posts above). (None of the lights have gone off, last I heard.)

There's no such thing as 100% availability from anything. It's just statistics, and grid managers have been dealing with variability of both supply and demand since the industry began.

The answer is *always* a mix of sources, and not to be reliant on any one. You wouldn't power an entire country with just a single massive nuclear station, and -for the same reason- you won't *just* use wind, or solar. (or anything else that you only have a single source for the fuel for: a power system based 100% on Russian gas imports won't end well, for example).

Getting the mix right is the key, and I hope there are smarter people than you or me involved in those decisions. Given that we're not being plunged into darkness regularly, then answer appears to be Yes, there are.

There is a big difference, 4GW of a total 60GW is insignificant, especially when it can be planned for, a possible 10GW down to less than 1GW,plus at anytime of the day or night it can change, coming up to peak demand and the wind drops, something else has to be ready to fill the gap, there are two types of power generation, base load or peak demand, wind is neither and must be seen as a luxury to make politicians feel good about saving the world, when in truth they are doing anything but.

[rolando]

PRTVR said:

There is a big difference, 4GW of a total 60GW is insignificant, especially when it can be planned for, a possible 10GW down to less than 1GW,plus at anytime of the day or night it can change, coming up to peak demand and the wind drops, something else has to be ready to fill the gap, there are two types of power generation, base load or peak demand, wind is neither and must be seen as a luxury to make politicians feel good about saving the world, when in truth they are doing anything but.

Five star post!