The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
rscott said:
Where does anything I linked to claim otherwise? I can't recall anyone posting on here that the current renewable supply isn't variable in nature.
You're confusing generation in Germany with average utilisation of wind-turbine capacity. For onshore, this can be 20-30% offshore 30-40% so when headline plate capacity figs are published without variability, renewables inc are being convenient with the truth close to fraud.turbobloke said:
As it happens, due to the intermittency of wind and the inconsistency of wind speed (on which the Quixotic variety of unreliables depends) the average output of a UK wind turbine is about 25% of its capacity. This is why, regardless of anything else, unreliables activists like to talk about capacity. Reality is less palatable (to everyone).
Couldn't agree more. Advertising Standards Authority agreed with me on this when I queried claims made on their website by the developers of a local wind farm. They were instructed to remove or reword their claim for output. This was after they failed in an appeal of the ASA decision.Ali G said:
rscott said:
Where does anything I linked to claim otherwise? I can't recall anyone posting on here that the current renewable supply isn't variable in nature.
You're confusing generation in Germany with average utilisation of wind-turbine capacity. For onshore, this can be 20-30% offshore 30-40% so when headline plate capacity figs are published without variability, renewables inc are being convenient with the truth close to fraud.That's why I included the image of actual power production in 2017, not the one of theoretical capacity.
rscott said:
turbobloke said:
rolando said:
V8 Fettler said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Ali G said:
V8 Fettler said:
Those Germans are using coal? The fiends! Don't they know it's dangerous?
If you can call the brown stuff coal - it's lignite mainly.http://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/6...
rscott said:
I'm not - I'm well aware that theoretical capacity and utilisation are often very far apart.
That's why I included the image of actual power production in 2017, not the one of theoretical capacity.
Presumably we could calculate the plate capacity that would be required to meet 80% of demand with 35% average utilisation accepting that the full 80% still needs backup by fossil fuel for when renewables are at 0% of demand and provide a persuasive argument based upon economics for those not directly involved with renewables inc.That's why I included the image of actual power production in 2017, not the one of theoretical capacity.
Ali G said:
rscott said:
I'm not - I'm well aware that theoretical capacity and utilisation are often very far apart.
That's why I included the image of actual power production in 2017, not the one of theoretical capacity.
Presumably we could calculate the plate capacity that would be required to meet 80% of demand with 35% average utilisation accepting that the full 80% still needs backup by fossil fuel for when renewables are at 0% of demand and provide a persuasive argument based upon economics for those not directly involved with renewables inc.That's why I included the image of actual power production in 2017, not the one of theoretical capacity.
I posted the link because rolando and turbobloke were asking if the 27% figure was capacity. It was to confirm that 33% (or 26% if you exclude biomass) of electricity generated in Germany last year came from renewable sources.
As posted in this thread previously, by me and possibly others, there's a report that windies like to bury - from Prof Hughes (a Professor and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, so an authority that faithful types should like appealing to) based on actual studies of thousands of actual UK turbines i.e. data not faith which found that performance, as opposed to plated capacity, is reduced from 24% in the first 12 months of operation to just 11% after 15 years. Add pathetic ROI to the known pathetic EROEI. Nevertheless, foolish politicians can and do spend gazillions of public money on these white elephants and can afford to get the mix up (as it were) by spunking our cash.
rscott said:
If you get a thrill out of it, don't let me stop you. I've not made any claims whatsoever about average utilisation, capacity or anything else.
I posted the link because rolando and turbobloke were asking if the 27% figure was capacity. It was to confirm that 33% (or 26% if you exclude biomass) of electricity generated in Germany last year came from renewable sources.
So the 26/27% was average generation via renewables and you have no opinion to add regarding the 80% average target.I posted the link because rolando and turbobloke were asking if the 27% figure was capacity. It was to confirm that 33% (or 26% if you exclude biomass) of electricity generated in Germany last year came from renewable sources.
Righto!
Ali G said:
rscott said:
If you get a thrill out of it, don't let me stop you. I've not made any claims whatsoever about average utilisation, capacity or anything else.
I posted the link because rolando and turbobloke were asking if the 27% figure was capacity. It was to confirm that 33% (or 26% if you exclude biomass) of electricity generated in Germany last year came from renewable sources.
So the 26/27% was average generation via renewables and you have no opinion to add regarding the 80% average target.I posted the link because rolando and turbobloke were asking if the 27% figure was capacity. It was to confirm that 33% (or 26% if you exclude biomass) of electricity generated in Germany last year came from renewable sources.
Righto!
rscott said:
80% in 32 years time? With current tech and relatively isolated supply grids, sounds unlikely. Have they published any sort of road map as to how they want to achieve it?
Probably not - although Germany has certain political tensions which have resulted in difficulties in forming a coalition.https://news.sky.com/story/merkels-fourth-term-in-...
Article said:
among other things the Greens were pushing for Germany to end its use of coal and combustion engines by 2030, although they had signalled they were open to some compromise.
The other parties are also committed to reducing carbon emissions, but Mrs Merkel's bloc had not put a date on when to phase out coal.
Given that Germany is closing its nukes too, it will be between a rock and a hard place unless tech delivers political promises.The other parties are also committed to reducing carbon emissions, but Mrs Merkel's bloc had not put a date on when to phase out coal.
Which is where we are all heading!
rscott said:
80% in 32 years time? With current tech and relatively isolated supply grids, sounds unlikely. Have they published any sort of road map as to how they want to achieve it?
Germany does have quite a few interconnects but I wonder how much they will end up relying on France if they meet that figure ?Gary C said:
Germany does have quite a few interconnects but I wonder how much they will end up relying on France if they meet that figure ?
Not sure how much France will have to spare if it ends up the other side of an interconnect from every country that finds nukes politically unacceptable.Ali G said:
rscott said:
80% in 32 years time? With current tech and relatively isolated supply grids, sounds unlikely. Have they published any sort of road map as to how they want to achieve it?
Probably not - although Germany has certain political tensions which have resulted in difficulties in forming a coalition.https://news.sky.com/story/merkels-fourth-term-in-...
Article said:
among other things the Greens were pushing for Germany to end its use of coal and combustion engines by 2030, although they had signalled they were open to some compromise.
The other parties are also committed to reducing carbon emissions, but Mrs Merkel's bloc had not put a date on when to phase out coal.
Given that Germany is closing its nukes too, it will be between a rock and a hard place unless tech delivers political promises.The other parties are also committed to reducing carbon emissions, but Mrs Merkel's bloc had not put a date on when to phase out coal.
Which is where we are all heading!
If the French think that might be on the cards politically (or simply don't trust German policy making) it might explain why they seem intent on destroying their exisiting low CO2 credibility and deploying ever more intermittent generation capacity.
That way they might get to a point where they can still find a way to supply Germany when wind and solar output is low and be paid to take whatever generation Germany can't use when generation is high. It could be a very smart move - though one has to wonder if might happen purely due to luck and fortune rather than decision making.
Or, to take a different angle, due to poor decisions by Germany from which others may take advantage.
We probably won't know for at least a couple of decades. Even then any interpretation of how matters have evolved are unlikely to be clear cut.
Without conducting a serious exercise on analysing the variability/probability arising in renewables which could demonstrate net nil/surplus across an interconnect at all times, then the only solution is some form of energy storage which would assist.
At least France has a few hills which could be hollowed out for hydro - although the Greens may also consider this to be unacceptable ecological desecration.
At least France has a few hills which could be hollowed out for hydro - although the Greens may also consider this to be unacceptable ecological desecration.
turbobloke said:
As posted in this thread previously, by me and possibly others, there's a report that windies like to bury - from Prof Hughes (a Professor and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, so an authority that faithful types should like appealing to) based on actual studies of thousands of actual UK turbines i.e. data not faith which found that performance, as opposed to plated capacity, is reduced from 24% in the first 12 months of operation to just 11% after 15 years. Add pathetic ROI to the known pathetic EROEI. Nevertheless, foolish politicians can and do spend gazillions of public money on these white elephants and can afford to get the mix up (as it were) by spunking our cash.
It's a good job technology advances then isn't it!Even though others think it isn't as bad as that chap, do you really consider a 5 year old study of over 15 year old technology a good indiciation of the performance of units in the future, after all we are talking about the future of power generation are we not?
Some of turbines in that study would have been 0.5 MW, by the time lots of the already proposed farms get built they will be using 15MW versions!
For those wanting to get an idea of the acreage of unreliables needed to achieve a certain amount of generation, in this case compared with Hinkley C, consider this diagram — originally published by the DECC but subsequently deliberately hidden.
Note that the acreage required will depend on the weather and time of day.
Note that the acreage required will depend on the weather and time of day.
JD said:
It's a good job technology advances then isn't it!
Even though others think it isn't as bad as that chap, do you really consider a 5 year old study of over 15 year old technology a good indiciation of the performance of units in the future, after all we are talking about the future of power generation are we not?
Some of turbines in that study would have been 0.5 MW, by the time lots of the already proposed farms get built they will be using 15MW versions!
You could make the same argument about nuclear power regarding the costs and safety based on old designs to block development and construction of new ones.Even though others think it isn't as bad as that chap, do you really consider a 5 year old study of over 15 year old technology a good indiciation of the performance of units in the future, after all we are talking about the future of power generation are we not?
Some of turbines in that study would have been 0.5 MW, by the time lots of the already proposed farms get built they will be using 15MW versions!
Out of interest how are the new WTGs 30 times the output? Do they use the same amount of space and materials to achieve this or is it a combination of bigger, more efficient wind usage and more efficient generators?
rscott said:
If you get a thrill out of it, don't let me stop you. I've not made any claims whatsoever about average utilisation, capacity or anything else.
I posted the link because rolando and turbobloke were asking if the 27% figure was capacity. It was to confirm that 33% (or 26% if you exclude biomass) of electricity generated in Germany last year came from renewable sources.
how much of that 33% was generated at a time it was required ? where it added positively by supplementing the other sources versus the other sources being wound down/switched off ? I posted the link because rolando and turbobloke were asking if the 27% figure was capacity. It was to confirm that 33% (or 26% if you exclude biomass) of electricity generated in Germany last year came from renewable sources.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff