The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Blue Oval84]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

But you Agree. That is all.

Does it not depend on how you define "worked"? If it's simply about "the lights stayed on" then yes, it's definitely worked.

If it's about "well, the lights stayed on but we've spent £billions more than we had to", then perhaps it hasn't worked very well?

[LongQ]

silentbrown said:

... and the fate of the Anglesey one was pretty closely tied to the nearby Wylfa Magnox station. The smelter was basically used as a large, controllable base load - they'd basically be paid to turn the smelter off at peak demand periods.

I don't think that's how most would run a smelter - certainly not on a sudden demand basis for a few hours.

silentbrown said:

As for jobs, it's always swings and roundabouts. "In 2015, an estimated 234,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees were working directly in low carbon and renewable energy (LCRE) activities in the UK, accounting for 1.0% of total UK non-financial employees.".

So are these people in jobs replacing those in previously "traditional" electricity generation methods? In which case are they, over all, much the same pay grades?

Or are these mostly NEW jobs that we need to accept as additional overheads, paid for somewhere along the transmission line, that would seem to be considered a "necessary" additional cost to generate lower amounts (in line with level or falling demand) than when using previous policies? Also previously little taxed of course - but that may be a different discussion.

If we are talking additional overheads for 250.000 people extra to deliver the same amount of product (energy) as previously was possible it does not sound like much a of a deal. I can't see how anyone could propose, as some do, that electricity will become cheaper and if we add to that the risk of a poorer, intermittent, service, nor will it become more reliable it seems.

Just more expensive and more taxed.

Is there some magic formula of social inclusion that fixes all of that?

Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 12th December 16:45

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Of course I appreciate there are 'additional' thoughts that accompany the process - but the usual brayers are all doom and gloom about the 'unreliables' and were jumping with glee at the low contribution to the grid.

Despite that - we The Consumers - did not see any problems.



I'd be more concerned about the Gas Explosion et al on the face of it..... (eggs / baskets):


The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.

But we are ok with that and the cost impact ?

Who knows. Potentially rank bad disaster planning and poor contingency investment on the basis of "getting away with it if we can".

However one can take steps to deal with that, yes, even if it costs some money, and there are some people with plans in hand to do just that.

Other people don't like those plans for various reasons, mostly political. Austria, of course, is anti-nuclear and, presumably, would like to see the back of coal. So they either need to beef up their gas security, turn their ski resorts into hydro projects or find some way in the mountains to make solar and wind work for them.

Or they could merge with Southern Germany.

Either way they will undoubtedly seek both reliable supply and cost effectiveness.

From memory winter supply in the UK was extremely tight a few years ago. Since then expected demand has dropped significantly and the predictions seem to have stabilised with likely supply availability being just about enough margin higher than predicted demand to avoid significant problems. How much of the demand drop might be due to privatised industrial use - businesses going off grid and buying energy directly for the most part - is something I have not seen discussed.

If we do end up with a supply problem it will be interesting to see who points fingers at whom.

Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 12th December 16:45

[XM5ER]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Of course I appreciate there are 'additional' thoughts that accompany the process - but the usual brayers are all doom and gloom about the 'unreliables' and were jumping with glee at the low contribution to the grid.

Despite that - we The Consumers - did not see any problems.



I'd be more concerned about the Gas Explosion et al on the face of it..... (eggs / baskets):


The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.

But we are ok with that and the cost impact ?

I'd be OK with it if the sodding hippies and NIMBY's (ironic for you in the wind industry I know) would get out of the way and let us get on with fracking the enormous amount of gas we have sitting under our feet in this country.

[PRTVR]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Of course I appreciate there are 'additional' thoughts that accompany the process - but the usual brayers are all doom and gloom about the 'unreliables' and were jumping with glee at the low contribution to the grid.

Despite that - we The Consumers - did not see any problems.



I'd be more concerned about the Gas Explosion et al on the face of it..... (eggs / baskets):


The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.

But we are ok with that and the cost impact ?

And if the gas had shut down today , wind would not have kept the lights on, coal has a total capacity of 10gw it would have delivered , wind, who knows what we would get.
Let's see how the French perform with the interconnection , they have history of shutting down links in favour of domestic consumption,
Time to build a few coal fired power stations I think.

[XM5ER]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

(as for Fracking / nimbus' - no issue for me. Frack on !)

I just meant in the way the NIMBY's have done for onshore wind is all.

[PRTVR]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

PRTVR said:

And if the gas had shut down today , wind would not have kept the lights on, coal has a total capacity of 10gw it would have delivered , wind, who knows what we would get.
Let's see how the French perform with the interconnection , they have history of shutting down links in favour of domestic consumption,
Time to build a few coal fired power stations I think.

Why - if there is no wind, the gas is supply issue, and yet Still - I have 240V flowing ..... Why build more Coal / import more coal ?



(as for Fracking / nimbus' - no issue for me. Frack on !)

Because you do not put all your eggs in one basket, I used the word "if" in relation to our gas supply, without gas coal is the only reliable form of electricity production that can be built in short time.

[Ali G]

PRTVR said:

Because you do not put all your eggs in one basket, I used the word "if" in relation to our gas supply, without gas coal is the only reliable form of electricity production that can be built in short time.

Isn't the issue that coal is expected to be de-commissioned, nuclear plants are ageing and not expected to be replaced and gas has little profitability when expected to operate as backup to wind, hence will not be expanding to replace coal and nuclear?

Obviously this will comply with political agreements made under Paris but perhaps not in the interest of the public.

[PRTVR]

Ali G said:

PRTVR said:

Because you do not put all your eggs in one basket, I used the word "if" in relation to our gas supply, without gas coal is the only reliable form of electricity production that can be built in short time.

Isn't the issue that coal is expected to be de-commissioned, nuclear plants are ageing and not expected to be replaced and gas has little profitability when expected to operate as backup to wind, hence will not be expanding to replace coal and nuclear?

Obviously this will comply with political agreements made under Paris but perhaps not in the interest of the public.

Agreed, but it would be brave of any government to shut down our remaining coal stations when they are running flat out and not addressed the supply security with gas.

[MYOB]

rolando said:

Both intermittent, therefore insecure, just like wind and solar. All four need back-up from coal, gas or imports. Nuclear is for base load. Others, such as hydro are insignificant.

Nothing is insignificant. Wave and tidal is advancing, although there have been a few failures. There are some notable projects advancing beyond their testing/prototype stage and will be feeding significantly to the grid.

You do need to forget this "intermittent" business. Everything needs "back-up". Please, once again, please please I implore you to fully understand security of supply.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

No worries.

I've not read it, but gleaned through it awaiting the usual disparaging remarks
Its all 'common knowledge' but already out of date when you consider page 45

to be fair the numbers you mentioned earlier in the thread seem to be doable at the current rate of progress after reading that, both the financials and increasing size of turbines. some interesting issues i hadn't thought about, although the engineering info was a bit tech light . i still can't get my head around why no one appears to be trying to couple the intermittent wind generated power with some form of energy storage to smooth out the delivery to the grid over the wind free days.

[rolando]

MYOB said:

Nothing is insignificant. Wave and tidal is advancing, although there have been a few failures. There are some notable projects advancing beyond their testing/prototype stage and will be feeding significantly to the grid.

You do need to forget this "intermittent" business. Everything needs "back-up". Please, once again, please please I implore you to fully understand security of supply.

It's only the back up to intermittency which makes unreliables secure. In other words, there's no need for them (unreliables) in the first place — just use the back-up and save £billions.

[MYOB]

rolando said:

It's only the back up to intermittency which makes unreliables secure. In other words, there's no need for them (unreliables) in the first place — just use the back-up and save £billions.

Ok, but how exactly is tidal intermittant?

[wc98]

Ali G said:

Isn't the issue that coal is expected to be de-commissioned, nuclear plants are ageing and not expected to be replaced and gas has little profitability when expected to operate as backup to wind, hence will not be expanding to replace coal and nuclear?

Obviously this will comply with political agreements made under Paris but perhaps not in the interest of the public.

one concern i have from the haynes wind link paddy posted was the timescale for this decommissioning " The latest budget
commits the UK to emissions reductions of 50% on 1990 levels by 2025."
personally as every major public project seems to run late these days i suppose this will be no different. even then it would seem the end game is having everyone working on their phones and not actually making anything as that figure is not doable if we want to maintain any sort of manufacturing base. maybe the coming transition from diesel cars to petrol might be enough to to it without too much disruption.

although anyone telling me we need to reduce the amount of plant food in the atmosphere is still off their trolley,imo. plenty bad stuff we could be targeting instead.

Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 12th December 17:49

[PRTVR]

MYOB said:

rolando said:

Both intermittent, therefore insecure, just like wind and solar. All four need back-up from coal, gas or imports. Nuclear is for base load. Others, such as hydro are insignificant.

Nothing is insignificant. Wave and tidal is advancing, although there have been a few failures. There are some notable projects advancing beyond their testing/prototype stage and will be feeding significantly to the grid.

You do need to forget this "intermittent" business. Everything needs "back-up". Please, once again, please please I implore you to fully understand security of supply.

What is say waiting for the nuclear power stations to shut down ?
You do not get security of supply with renewables, when the wind drops so do the waves, security only comes from the ability to generate electricity when you need it.

[wc98]

MYOB said:

Ok, but how exactly is tidal intermittant?

this highlights the problems of just one tidal project. http://euanmearns.com/the-cardiff-bay-tidal-lagoon...
good resource worth keeping in mind.

here is an assessment for uk wide tidal generation. http://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-tidal-base-l...

i do get the point regarding mixed energy systems but i have to say a mix of coal, gas and nuclear take some beating just on reliability alone.

one other issue with tidal energy is one i have with wind regarding large amounts of energy being removed from the mechanisms that transport the planets energy around the system. all that energy already has a purpose/effect on the planet. no one knows what the long term effect of removing it will be.

Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 12th December 17:53

[eliot]

The only dog I have in this fight is the fact that in the summer, when it was low demand, windy, warm and sunny we had the renewable lobby out telling us how great wind power is, cant find the reference to the percentage- but it was disproportionately large - trying to make out that it’s our saviour.
Yet this morning wind is putting out little more than my iphone - because its cold, dark, no sun and no wind.
In both cases - we are stating the obvious, yet didn’t see sky news article today saying wind managed to piss out a gigawatt

[MYOB]

wc98 said:

this highlights the problems of just one tidal project. http://euanmearns.com/the-cardiff-bay-tidal-lagoon...
good resource worth keeping in mind.

here is an assessment for uk wide tidal generation. http://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-tidal-base-l...

i do get the point regarding mixed energy systems but i have to say a mix of coal, gas and nuclear take some beating just on reliability alone.

one other issue with tidal energy is one i have with wind regarding large amounts of energy being removed from the mechanisms that transport the planets energy around the system. all that energy already has a purpose/effect on the planet. no one knows what the long term effect of removing it will be.

Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 12th December 17:53

Aha, so it's not as simple as thinking the tides are guaranteed. Interesting, so thanks for the links.

I agree that fossil fuel and nuclear are the key fuel for generators. But they all have their own risks and issues.

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Energy storage is being trialled currently - on a very very small scale - as is floating wind of course.
As all things - experimental sites and tech - fine tune, and roll out in mass.

I think you will agree that energy storage on such a large scale is generations (excuse the pun) away. Floating wind farms are more likely to occur far sooner should the current testing stage be successful.

[LongQ]

MYOB said:

rolando said:

Both intermittent, therefore insecure, just like wind and solar. All four need back-up from coal, gas or imports. Nuclear is for base load. Others, such as hydro are insignificant.

Nothing is insignificant. Wave and tidal is advancing, although there have been a few failures. There are some notable projects advancing beyond their testing/prototype stage and will be feeding significantly to the grid.

You do need to forget this "intermittent" business. Everything needs "back-up". Please, once again, please please I implore you to fully understand security of supply.

Please explain to us why intermittency does not matter.

Or, if you think it does matter, how it is to be dealt with in an affordable way.

Thanks.