The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[MYOB]

LongQ said:

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest intermittency doesn't matter. It's just that the developers and Government are aware that power from wind is intermittent and thus they are prepared for this.

Sorry, is there such a thing as "affordable" when it refers to energy production? Besides, it could be argued that coal is "affordable", but yet environmentally it is a disaster. Energy production has to look at many factors (PESTIE model anyone?) and not focus primarily on costs.

Look, I'm in no way an expert on these matters. I only worked in specific fields in DECC.

[rolando]

wc98 said:

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

I was (again) about to post the same which goes on to show the level of intermittency, even with lagoons spread around our coastline.

[PRTVR]

MYOB said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest intermittency doesn't matter. It's just that the developers and Government are aware that power from wind is intermittent and thus they are prepared for this.

Sorry, is there such a thing as "affordable" when it refers to energy production? Besides, it could be argued that coal is "affordable", but yet environmentally it is a disaster. Energy production has to look at many factors (PESTIE model anyone?) and not focus primarily on costs.

Look, I'm in no way an expert on these matters. I only worked in specific fields in DECC.

Could you expand on coal environmentally a disaster, if it's so bad why is Asia still building them in large numbers, why is Germany looking to build more, yet we are getting rid of our few remaining power stations, I have no problem if everyone is doing it but we appear to be penalising ourselves with expensive electricity for no apparent reason.

Edited by PRTVR on Tuesday 12th December 21:11

[Wayoftheflower]

wc98 said:

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

We aren't "removing" (re purposing might be more accurate) large amounts though in comparison to that big fusion reactor in the sky or the kinetic energy stored in the earth-moon orbit system.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

eliot said:

Now down to 1.26gw

O

You have managed to post on PH

Did the lights go out?
Have we had power outages due to your remarkable insightful revelation?

Or, has the balanced grid, interconnectors, mixed energies - and dare I saw experts and engineers who can see past the ends of their noses allowed you to continue with your fascinating morning?

The concept of relying on "It's not gone wrong so far, so it must be OK" is deeply flawed, as demonstrated by Chernobyl, Herald of Free Enterprise and countless other screw-ups.

[V8 Fettler]

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.

It's the degree of back-up required that's the issue with wind. What back-up was required for coal today, when it was really needed?

[V8 Fettler]

XM5ER said:

rolando said:

ake a look at DUKES

Interesting, especially the flow diagram of inputs and outputs, by far the biggest output (consumer) of energy being the conversion, transmission and distribution of 'leccy. That, in a nutshell describes my issue with electric cars.

It's also why gas should preferably be burnt by the end user, it certainly shouldn't be used for base load, that should be coal and nuclear.

[V8 Fettler]

MYOB said:

LongQ said:

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest intermittency doesn't matter. It's just that the developers and Government are aware that power from wind is intermittent and thus they are prepared for this.

Sorry, is there such a thing as "affordable" when it refers to energy production? Besides, it could be argued that coal is "affordable", but yet environmentally it is a disaster. Energy production has to look at many factors (PESTIE model anyone?) and not focus primarily on costs.

Look, I'm in no way an expert on these matters. I only worked in specific fields in DECC.

How is coal used for power generation in the UK an environmental disaster?

[V8 Fettler]

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 !)

Do volts flow?

[Ali G]

V8 Fettler said:

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.

It's the degree of back-up required that's the issue with wind. What back-up was required for coal today, when it was really needed?

'Back-up' I would interpret as a risk-management procedure taken as a precaution against the unforeseen.

The wind/gas situation appears to be more symbiotic, where wind cannot exist without gas filling in the performance troughs of wind - at the expense of gas.

The only aspect unforeseen about wind, currently, is how little, for how long and when.

Imho, 'back-up' is the incorrect terminology for this scenario.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Out of your last two posts I am struggling to decide which Is the most stupid

You're clearly not an electrical engineer if you believe that volts flow. That goes a long way to explaining your inability to grasp the basic requirements of power generation in the UK

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

-12 centigrade in parts of the UK, not much of a breeze. Coal is working magnificently, I assume that wind is doing the best it can.

Stopped watching ? I mean gloating.....

18%

Wind power is indeed increasing at 2200hrs, just as demand is falling, that's useful.

[MYOB]

PRTVR said:

Could you expand on coal environmentally a disaster, if it's so bad why is Asia still building them in large numbers, why is Germany looking to build more, yet we are getting rid of our few remaining power stations, I have no problem if everyone is doing it but we appear to be penalising ourselves with expensive electricity for no apparent reason.

Edited by PRTVR on Tuesday 12th December 21:11

Think of pollution. Just because others continue to build them, it doesn't mean we should. Some countries have to lead by example and do what is right for the quality of air we breathe. To mitigate this, CCS and clean coal is the compromise.

[MYOB]

V8 Fettler said:

It's the degree of back-up required that's the issue with wind. What back-up was required for coal today, when it was really needed?

Just think of those lovely windy days where the turbines are spinning freely and on that day, some coal power stations can be shut down. That is one day of reducing pollution. A simplistic view but you get the gist

[MYOB]

V8 Fettler said:

How is coal used for power generation in the UK an environmental disaster?

Pollution/air quality. And don't you think all those mines where excavation was carried out had an adverse affect on the ecological and environmental matters?

[Ali G]

MYOB said:

Pollution/air quality. And don't you think all those mines where excavation was carried out had an adverse affect on the ecological and environmental matters?

There may be compromises to be made in providing acceptable habitation across a broad spectrum of life.

This would also include bio-diversity in estuarine eco-systems affected by tidal energy generation.

The least polluting long-term solution would be fusion, but that is generally 30 years away!

However, it will not be acceptable to the general public (voter speaking here) if insufficient base-load capability with reliable on-demand capacity is jettisoned in favour of renewables which have yet unproven capability to meet energy demands simply in pursuit of ideological political agendas based upon environmental and ecological demands which are untenable in the timescales set by politicians.

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Easy answer therefore is get Nuclear to the table at a reasonable price. Something I wholly endorse.


Why can’t they ?

Serious question. What's the long-term solution for the disposal of nuclear waste?

[Ali G]

MYOB said:

Serious question. What's the long-term solution for the disposal of nuclear waste?

Serious question - nothing is perfect - what is the least imperfect solution?

[MYOB]

Ali G said:

Serious question - nothing is perfect - what is the least imperfect solution?

Don't answer a question with a question...

I've no solutions to offer, perfect or otherwise.

[Ali G]

MYOB said:

Ali G said:

Serious question - nothing is perfect - what is the least imperfect solution?

Don't answer a question with a question...

I've no solutions to offer, perfect or otherwise.

Am intrigued as to why a question cannot be answered by a further question, since the presumption would be that you expect a response with a 'solution' or no response at all.

I therefore reply with 'no response at all'