The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
XM5ER said:
I once titled my Degree thesis the same, how ironic that very little has improved since I wrote it 25 years ago.
Anyway, I proposed to bring the wind generation discussion out of the Climate Change thread for the purposes of opening up to the wider PH audience (I know a lot of people don't venture in there anymore since it is so polarized). I also want to open it up beyond the renewable discussion as so much has gone wrong since I wrote my thesis all that time ago.
To state my position, we should be building CCGT plant (combined cycle gas turbines) and fracking for all we are worth. At the same time we should be piling research into modular small fission nuclear power plant and putting long term research into fusion (hot or cold). I do not believe that wind power has more than a minor contribution to be made due to it's intermittency (is that a word?) and therefore the need to have back up plant that costs a shed load of cash to be just sitting there idling. As for solar? Give me a break, it barely warms my skin for more than a few days a year, it sure ain't gonna charge my Tesla.
I agree with everything you have said here, all sensible stuff.Anyway, I proposed to bring the wind generation discussion out of the Climate Change thread for the purposes of opening up to the wider PH audience (I know a lot of people don't venture in there anymore since it is so polarized). I also want to open it up beyond the renewable discussion as so much has gone wrong since I wrote my thesis all that time ago.
To state my position, we should be building CCGT plant (combined cycle gas turbines) and fracking for all we are worth. At the same time we should be piling research into modular small fission nuclear power plant and putting long term research into fusion (hot or cold). I do not believe that wind power has more than a minor contribution to be made due to it's intermittency (is that a word?) and therefore the need to have back up plant that costs a shed load of cash to be just sitting there idling. As for solar? Give me a break, it barely warms my skin for more than a few days a year, it sure ain't gonna charge my Tesla.
Apparently the extra demand for electric cars and such like is all going to happen by magic. The people running our country are and have been totally incompetent for far too long.
Does anyone remember when Boris Johnson was on Top Gear and JC asked him where the electricity was going to come from, his response was "the plug".
AlexC1981 said:
I don't know if it's been covered but why don't we use the moon?
By that I mean all that vast body of water which surrounds our island and goes in and out twice a day. The movement of so much water must contain a huge amount of energy. Why can't we get more power from tidal energy?
Notwithstanding the economic arguments about tidal power, there is one very significant argument against it, if you care to look long term sufficiently.By that I mean all that vast body of water which surrounds our island and goes in and out twice a day. The movement of so much water must contain a huge amount of energy. Why can't we get more power from tidal energy?
It slows down the earth's rotation.
The speed at which the earth rotates is slowing all the time. The main driver of this is tidal friction. When water flows into or out of estuaries and bays, it always doesn't get there quite as fast as it wants, and the same is true in the opposite sense when the tide ebbs. This is tidal friction. It throws the balance of the energy involved out of kilter with what would occur if the tides were just moving around a land free ocean. It might not sound like much, but one second is added to planetary time every 18 months to adjust for this effect against atomic clocks. When the dinosaurs were running around, not so long ago in geological terms, there were about 385 days in a year, each day 23 hours long or so.
As rotation slows, climatological consequences follow. Pounding back immense amounts of water for unnaturally long times behind tidal barriers is going to increase this friction effect considerably.
Actually, wind turbines have the same effect. Wind predominately blows in an easterly direction. When it hits a turbine, the energy generated is a function of the force the wind has on the tower and blades. There has to be an equal and opposite force, or the whole thing would just slide along like paper bag in a breeze. That force will be in a westerly direction, that is, against the direction of the earth's rotation. So again, wind turbines will contribute to the slowing of the speed of rotation.
Now, this might not seem like very much in terms of what effects might be expected in a single lifetime, but we are talking here of energy that can never be recuperated, and climatic effects that will never be reversed. Carbon will 'wash out' of the atmosphere in time, thanks to natural cycles. Spent nuclear fuel has a half life, and will eventually fade away.
But, as an ex geologist and oceanographer, it makes me mad when I hear green proponents of wind and tidal energy say that it is free, pollution free source of electrical power.
The truth is really that you don't get out for nowt.
Right, I'm an absolute layman.
I'm not convinced that micro-generation and renewables are the answer in and of themselves. That said, I do wonder how much electricity we use/waste getting it to the point of consumption. I should think that it's a fair bit.
I live in a rural part of the country (which is probably one of the least densely populated too) but I'm within <8 miles of two gas fired power stations and lord knows how many AD plants. In addition we have a sufficient no. of wind turbines to easily exceed local demand (when the wind blows of course) I can only conclude that we're exporting vast amounts of energy around the country (that's fine by the way). I'd be interested to know what the 'loss' is.
It seems to me that we could do lots of things to improve the current situation. I appreciate that there are geographical limitations with regards to Nuclear, but IMHO we need more power generated closer to where it's consumed.
I'm not convinced that micro-generation and renewables are the answer in and of themselves. That said, I do wonder how much electricity we use/waste getting it to the point of consumption. I should think that it's a fair bit.
I live in a rural part of the country (which is probably one of the least densely populated too) but I'm within <8 miles of two gas fired power stations and lord knows how many AD plants. In addition we have a sufficient no. of wind turbines to easily exceed local demand (when the wind blows of course) I can only conclude that we're exporting vast amounts of energy around the country (that's fine by the way). I'd be interested to know what the 'loss' is.
It seems to me that we could do lots of things to improve the current situation. I appreciate that there are geographical limitations with regards to Nuclear, but IMHO we need more power generated closer to where it's consumed.
garagewidow said:
it'll be like painting the forth bridge.
on another note france plans the banning of fossil fuelled vehicles by 2040 so that means a probable increase in nuclear power just to keep up with the power demand from users.
remember the 'nuclear power will mean low or virtually free electricity' mantra back in the 60's.
I wonder how much electricity prices will rocket once we are all driving them,sure it only costs what,10p? to charge an electric car today!
Interestingly the same gentleman's policy for the future is, reportedly, to reduce their nuclear fleet from something over 70% of demand to about 50%. The difference to be replaced, if it is replaced, by renewables. on another note france plans the banning of fossil fuelled vehicles by 2040 so that means a probable increase in nuclear power just to keep up with the power demand from users.
remember the 'nuclear power will mean low or virtually free electricity' mantra back in the 60's.
I wonder how much electricity prices will rocket once we are all driving them,sure it only costs what,10p? to charge an electric car today!
Currently, other for some panics about some of the Nuclear plant earlier this year, they have enough excess capacity to be able to sell what is not required domestically to Italy, Germany, Switzerland and the UK with Eire via the UK too.
One might suspect that they anticipate that a worst case scenario means that they will just not be able to export as support to other grids if the renewables are not generating. So far their EU colleagues and customers don't seem to have been making any comments about that strategy despite all academic reports suggesting the only solution (a very costly one) is a pan European sharing option with high levels of excess capacity embedded for normal demand.
As for the cost of charging an electric car - you can work it out on a local basis.
For something almost viable, like the battery in the latest Renault Zoe which offers a claimed range of circa 200 miles, you need 40 kWh of charging to full capacity. So take your residential rate per kW and multiply by 40 to get an indication of how much it would currently cost to travel 200 miles.
EoN tell me that their rate is about 16.2p per kWh so 40 x 16.2 = £6.48 if I got the maths right.
I have not ready of anyone suggesting that prices are likely to come down for this "free" energy.
The whole future is one massive experiment it seems to me. And the "lawmakers" have bought in to the idea of forcing policy based on hope rather than experience.
Things could get interesting quickly. Especially if France makes the logical move to ban all non-electric vehicles from their roads. Presumable the rest of Europe might feel somewhat challenged to provide sufficient charge capacity for all-electric French travellers too. Unless, of course, the rest of Europe follows the French policy as well.
OneManBanned said:
Right, I'm an absolute layman.
I'm not convinced that micro-generation and renewables are the answer in and of themselves. That said, I do wonder how much electricity we use/waste getting it to the point of consumption. I should think that it's a fair bit.
I live in a rural part of the country (which is probably one of the least densely populated too) but I'm within <8 miles of two gas fired power stations and lord knows how many AD plants. In addition we have a sufficient no. of wind turbines to easily exceed local demand (when the wind blows of course) I can only conclude that we're exporting vast amounts of energy around the country (that's fine by the way). I'd be interested to know what the 'loss' is.
It seems to me that we could do lots of things to improve the current situation. I appreciate that there are geographical limitations with regards to Nuclear, but IMHO we need more power generated closer to where it's consumed.
The losses are probably less than you imagine but in any case future plans for renewable energy pretty much require an ever extending grid network - global would be good if it could be achieved - in order to deal with questions of intermittency and periods of demand not matching periods of local availability.I'm not convinced that micro-generation and renewables are the answer in and of themselves. That said, I do wonder how much electricity we use/waste getting it to the point of consumption. I should think that it's a fair bit.
I live in a rural part of the country (which is probably one of the least densely populated too) but I'm within <8 miles of two gas fired power stations and lord knows how many AD plants. In addition we have a sufficient no. of wind turbines to easily exceed local demand (when the wind blows of course) I can only conclude that we're exporting vast amounts of energy around the country (that's fine by the way). I'd be interested to know what the 'loss' is.
It seems to me that we could do lots of things to improve the current situation. I appreciate that there are geographical limitations with regards to Nuclear, but IMHO we need more power generated closer to where it's consumed.
That said, these days,with LED lighting, it's not so much a case of "keeping the lights on" as being about to provide sufficient power for heating (and cooling in hotter climes) and things like cooking too. And soon, on-demand travel of the type we have come to expect during the past generation or two once personal transportation options move to electric only.
LongQ said:
OneManBanned said:
Right, I'm an absolute layman.
I'm not convinced that micro-generation and renewables are the answer in and of themselves. That said, I do wonder how much electricity we use/waste getting it to the point of consumption. I should think that it's a fair bit.
I live in a rural part of the country (which is probably one of the least densely populated too) but I'm within <8 miles of two gas fired power stations and lord knows how many AD plants. In addition we have a sufficient no. of wind turbines to easily exceed local demand (when the wind blows of course) I can only conclude that we're exporting vast amounts of energy around the country (that's fine by the way). I'd be interested to know what the 'loss' is.
It seems to me that we could do lots of things to improve the current situation. I appreciate that there are geographical limitations with regards to Nuclear, but IMHO we need more power generated closer to where it's consumed.
The losses are probably less than you imagine but in any case future plans for renewable energy pretty much require an ever extending grid network - global would be good if it could be achieved - in order to deal with questions of intermittency and periods of demand not matching periods of local availability.I'm not convinced that micro-generation and renewables are the answer in and of themselves. That said, I do wonder how much electricity we use/waste getting it to the point of consumption. I should think that it's a fair bit.
I live in a rural part of the country (which is probably one of the least densely populated too) but I'm within <8 miles of two gas fired power stations and lord knows how many AD plants. In addition we have a sufficient no. of wind turbines to easily exceed local demand (when the wind blows of course) I can only conclude that we're exporting vast amounts of energy around the country (that's fine by the way). I'd be interested to know what the 'loss' is.
It seems to me that we could do lots of things to improve the current situation. I appreciate that there are geographical limitations with regards to Nuclear, but IMHO we need more power generated closer to where it's consumed.
That said, these days,with LED lighting, it's not so much a case of "keeping the lights on" as being about to provide sufficient power for heating (and cooling in hotter climes) and things like cooking too. And soon, on-demand travel of the type we have come to expect during the past generation or two once personal transportation options move to electric only.
The consumption on my individual items has likely reduced (thanks to LED bulbs, more efficient TVs, fridges, etc.) but I doubt that my overall consumption in absolute terms has reduced. My whole bloody life seems to be on charge!
Roofless Toothless said:
Notwithstanding the economic arguments about tidal power, there is one very significant argument against it, if you care to look long term sufficiently.
It slows down the earth's rotation.
.
Well, yes. But just not by very much. It slows down the earth's rotation.
.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/28/...
"The spin down rate is very slow," says Mardling, "It's about two milliseconds per century. So the Earth's day is getting longer by a 500th of a second every century".
Given that we're talking about serious climatic effects in the course of the next few centuries, i wouldn't be too concerned about the implications in a few millenia. Particularly as the earth's rotation is actually getting faster at the moment, not slower.
silentbrown said:
Given that we're talking about serious climatic effects in the course of the next few centuries, i wouldn't be too concerned about the implications in a few millenia. Particularly as the earth's rotation is actually getting faster at the moment, not slower.
Sneaky buggers running the windmills backwards? silentbrown said:
Roofless Toothless said:
Notwithstanding the economic arguments about tidal power, there is one very significant argument against it, if you care to look long term sufficiently.
It slows down the earth's rotation.
.
Well, yes. But just not by very much. It slows down the earth's rotation.
.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/28/...
"The spin down rate is very slow," says Mardling, "It's about two milliseconds per century. So the Earth's day is getting longer by a 500th of a second every century".
Given that we're talking about serious climatic effects in the course of the next few centuries, i wouldn't be too concerned about the implications in a few millenia. Particularly as the earth's rotation is actually getting faster at the moment, not slower.
Why don't we just stop being the world's mug and do what everyone else is doing and go coal crazy.
India alone would blow the 1.5C warming limit (if the fake science and BS temperature record was worth a bean).
So why even bother?
Especially when the BBC reports the 'death of coal' and China as the world's saviour for shelving plans for a mere 100 (only because their economy stalled a bit) - you can see how dishonest the propaganda is.
India alone would blow the 1.5C warming limit (if the fake science and BS temperature record was worth a bean).
So why even bother?
Especially when the BBC reports the 'death of coal' and China as the world's saviour for shelving plans for a mere 100 (only because their economy stalled a bit) - you can see how dishonest the propaganda is.
There really are no easy solutions and certainly no quick wins.
Modern civilisation has been built upon cheap energy through use of abundant fossil fuels.
Whilst knowledge and in particular tech has increased (perhaps exponentially) over the last few decades, there are fundamental challenges in moving from fossil fuels as the primary source of energy which powers modern civilisation.
Every potential replacement has limitations, some of which are fundamental (will never work), some which are technological (tech under development), and some are limited by societal objections.
Modern civilisation has been built upon cheap energy through use of abundant fossil fuels.
Whilst knowledge and in particular tech has increased (perhaps exponentially) over the last few decades, there are fundamental challenges in moving from fossil fuels as the primary source of energy which powers modern civilisation.
Every potential replacement has limitations, some of which are fundamental (will never work), some which are technological (tech under development), and some are limited by societal objections.
The point is that there is no emergency, and forcing the issue is not green or economically viable (the unintended consequences are worse), there will be a natural transition as economics and technology developments permit.
But that is free market capitalism, the very thing that climate change was invented to destroy.
But that is free market capitalism, the very thing that climate change was invented to destroy.
How is it that years ago with the industrial revolution in full swing we were able to power things like massive electric blast furnaces tha used enough electric to power a small town without the lights going out and now we are s
tting ourselves about keeping a few LEDs lit? This green low power malarkey obviously isn't working.
tting ourselves about keeping a few LEDs lit? This green low power malarkey obviously isn't working.mickmcpaddy said:
How is it that years ago with the industrial revolution in full swing we were able to power things like massive electric blast furnaces tha used enough electric to power a small town without the lights going out and now we are stting ourselves about keeping a few LEDs lit? This green low power malarkey obviously isn't working.
there is no such thing as a free lunch,tting ourselves about keeping a few LEDs lit? This green low power malarkey obviously isn't working.back in the times you refer to we had a single light bulb per room,no electronic gadgets apart from the tv and radio which were not in use 24/7 unlike today.
the population was much smaller so required less energy to exist.
the flip side is with a rapidly expanding population we need to create power exponentially just to keep up with demand for their(our) reliance on power for general living.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ
I have numerous €5 bets around to members of the industry that there is no way in hell (Climate Change heated or otherwise) that the French offshore wind projects will go ahead under their current regime, rule book and designs- for various reasons.
They may in due course but I can't imagine anything hitting the water (in volume) before 2022
Perhaps the French have some sense and are waiting upon Elon Musk's "Big Battery" to solve the intermittency issues of wind power before switching off any 'surplus' nuclear power.I have numerous €5 bets around to members of the industry that there is no way in hell (Climate Change heated or otherwise) that the French offshore wind projects will go ahead under their current regime, rule book and designs- for various reasons.
They may in due course but I can't imagine anything hitting the water (in volume) before 2022
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ
I have numerous €5 bets around to members of the industry that there is no way in hell (Climate Change heated or otherwise) that the French offshore wind projects will go ahead under their current regime, rule book and designs- for various reasons.
They may in due course but I can't imagine anything hitting the water (in volume) before 2022
Paddy,I have numerous €5 bets around to members of the industry that there is no way in hell (Climate Change heated or otherwise) that the French offshore wind projects will go ahead under their current regime, rule book and designs- for various reasons.
They may in due course but I can't imagine anything hitting the water (in volume) before 2022
Well, I could have been clearer I agree.
I was not specifically referring to Offshore wind projects for France. Rather, the story coming out of France was a catalyst considering the issues that the allout move to electric power for everything would entail. Currently that seems to rely, as a strategy, on the whole of Europe and some outlier locations all agreeing to work together and establish a super grid to distribute power as demanded no matter where the wind is blowing.
With a lot of base load potential on the heavily electricity dependent French energy market Europe can probably just about entertain that dream. Just as well when Germany seems to be slow to take steps to connect North to South.
If France increases demand by electrifying all road vehicles rapidly (in addition to any increasing demands from other directions) and at the same time cuts its nuclear base load capacity whilst adopting laws that would mean no fossil fuels would be allowed under any circumstances, they will have to do something pretty dramatic with renewables on land (if they eschew Offshore - have they got any viable sites with large potential?) and do it quickly.
If the French population wishes to follow that path then good luck to them. It would be interesting to see how they get on.
The problems for more sensible voting populations wold seem to be that the idiot politicians have all caught the "me too virtue" virus and are likely to follow suit for no logical reasons simply to avoid being seen as less virtuous.than their peers by a population that will, by and large, have never had access to any information that would really have kept them informed.
None of the politicians want to be talking to an informed and educated population on such subjects. So they make sure the population is not assisted with its understanding and try to avoid the subject whenever possible.
Elon Musk has committed to providing South Australia with a Li-On battery storage facility as part of a plan to avert the blame for future blackouts be connected to renewable energy issues related to wind generation.
One article I read suggests that the deal agreed is about 1/3 of what might be required for the new facility now being created due to the limited funds available in South Australia's budget.
Musk has guaranteed a 100 day installation period from a start date yet to be fixed. However that is just for the batteries and directly related infrastructure it seems - there are other costs involved to make it operational. Quite high costs are being speculated.
Musk says the installation will be free is they cannot install and complete in 100 days and has suggested a cost risk of $50 million plus - presumably USD.
This is quite serious stuff and at first blush seems to put the Tesla reputation on the line both for installation commitment and post installation. effectiveness. Fiscally a $50+ million risk is not to be ignored but who knows how the risk aspect are likely to be apportioned? In any case one might see it is as cheap PR even if it fails providing it only just fails on delivery times rather than performance post installation.
Lets assume is is installed on time and proves to work as expected. Tesla would then be in a good shape, so far as one could imagine right now with no solid investment numbers to work with, to dominate a fast growing market that might be the result. Or might not if people look at the costs and say "HOW MUCH?" .
I'm going to suggest that the politicians will forge ahead whatever the cost for as long as they can find taxes that provide income.
So eventually there will be a lot of Lithium based batteries around coming to end of their 10 year life expectancy and needing to be recycled. How can that be addressed?
Here's a paper that discusses it. Provided as background when considering the entire technology cycle.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
One article I read suggests that the deal agreed is about 1/3 of what might be required for the new facility now being created due to the limited funds available in South Australia's budget.
Musk has guaranteed a 100 day installation period from a start date yet to be fixed. However that is just for the batteries and directly related infrastructure it seems - there are other costs involved to make it operational. Quite high costs are being speculated.
Musk says the installation will be free is they cannot install and complete in 100 days and has suggested a cost risk of $50 million plus - presumably USD.
This is quite serious stuff and at first blush seems to put the Tesla reputation on the line both for installation commitment and post installation. effectiveness. Fiscally a $50+ million risk is not to be ignored but who knows how the risk aspect are likely to be apportioned? In any case one might see it is as cheap PR even if it fails providing it only just fails on delivery times rather than performance post installation.
Lets assume is is installed on time and proves to work as expected. Tesla would then be in a good shape, so far as one could imagine right now with no solid investment numbers to work with, to dominate a fast growing market that might be the result. Or might not if people look at the costs and say "HOW MUCH?" .
I'm going to suggest that the politicians will forge ahead whatever the cost for as long as they can find taxes that provide income.
So eventually there will be a lot of Lithium based batteries around coming to end of their 10 year life expectancy and needing to be recycled. How can that be addressed?
Here's a paper that discusses it. Provided as background when considering the entire technology cycle.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff