The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[V8 Fettler]

turbobloke said:

Paddy giving instructions

Here's an acute reference...as opposed to obtuse. It provides an interesting angle.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-uk-ren...

See graphic for details.

From carbonbrief:




Ballpark total £70billion, plus cost of building, operating and maintaining back-up generating capacity, perhaps average £3billion per annum? Total approx £110billion over 15 years,

[Gary C]

Ali G said:

New EDF nuke for Sizewell could be 20% cheaper than Hinckley.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-suffolk-42...

Rossi said:

the key to reducing the cost of building new power stations was replication.

Ye don't say...

That and a spot of competion.

Seems a bit steep to qualify two emergency generators for £38m.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Can we have a vote to just see how many people here think that using the word "unreliables" is funny (and that they are over the age of 12)

Only if you include a question about the veracity of the word "renewables" as well. Another word that goes undiscovered by the spell checker.

[rolando]

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Can we have a vote to just see how many people here think that using the word "unreliables" is funny (and that they are over the age of 12)

Only if you include a question about the veracity of the word "renewables" as well. Another word that goes undiscovered by the spell checker.

Along with a solution to the intermittency of the aforementioned.

[turbobloke]

rolando said:

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Can we have a vote to just see how many people here think that using the word "unreliables" is funny (and that they are over the age of 12)

Only if you include a question about the veracity of the word "renewables" as well. Another word that goes undiscovered by the spell checker.

Along with a solution to the intermittency of the aforementioned.

Unreliables activists think storage is the solution but unless there's an economically and geophysicallly viable means of covering the country in pumped hydro, it just makes EROEI even worse.

Unreliables as a term is hardly funny, in this context it means undependable, expensive and pointless.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Can we have a vote to just see how many people here think that using the word "unreliables" is funny (and that they are over the age of 12)

We'll also need a vote on the use of the word "renewable", how do you renew energy?

[Ali G]

turbobloke said:

rolando said:

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Can we have a vote to just see how many people here think that using the word "unreliables" is funny (and that they are over the age of 12)

Only if you include a question about the veracity of the word "renewables" as well. Another word that goes undiscovered by the spell checker.

Along with a solution to the intermittency of the aforementioned.

Unreliables activists think storage is the solution but unless there's an economically and geophysicallly viable means of covering the country in pumped hydro, it just makes EROEI even worse.

Unreliables as a term is hardly funny, in this context it means undependable, expensive and pointless.

Again, from EDF (no - I don't work for them but rather like the cut of their jib)

https://www.edfenergy.com/future-energy/hydro-elec...

EDF said:

Not many sites in the UK meet these conditions. Most of those that do are in the Scottish Highlands and are already home to large-scale hydropower schemes. In 2014, hydro generated 1.91% of UK electricity. Due to the lack of other suitable sites, this figure is unlikely to increase significantly.

Never hurts to state the bleedin' obvious.

[Toltec]

Ali G said:

turbobloke said:

rolando said:

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Can we have a vote to just see how many people here think that using the word "unreliables" is funny (and that they are over the age of 12)

Only if you include a question about the veracity of the word "renewables" as well. Another word that goes undiscovered by the spell checker.

Along with a solution to the intermittency of the aforementioned.

Unreliables activists think storage is the solution but unless there's an economically and geophysicallly viable means of covering the country in pumped hydro, it just makes EROEI even worse.

Unreliables as a term is hardly funny, in this context it means undependable, expensive and pointless.

Again, from EDF (no - I don't work for them but rather like the cut of their jib)

https://www.edfenergy.com/future-energy/hydro-elec...

EDF said:

Not many sites in the UK meet these conditions. Most of those that do are in the Scottish Highlands and are already home to large-scale hydropower schemes. In 2014, hydro generated 1.91% of UK electricity. Due to the lack of other suitable sites, this figure is unlikely to increase significantly.

Never hurts to state the bleedin' obvious.

The answer is so simple. In bits of countryside that are not windy you build a load of water towers, you could maybe share a pump set and turbine house between several towers to reduce the costs. Hell just put enormous tanks on top of highrise apartment blocks and you solve the housing and energy problems at the same time, plus if there is a fire there is plenty of water to put it out. All you need to do is make sure most of the cost is lost in subsidies to build affordable housing and the power is free.

[rolando]

Toltec said:

The answer is so simple. In bits of countryside that are not windy you build a load of water towers, you could maybe share a pump set and turbine house between several towers to reduce the costs. Hell just put enormous tanks on top of highrise apartment blocks and you solve the housing and energy problems at the same time, plus if there is a fire there is plenty of water to put it out. All you need to do is make sure most of the cost is lost in subsidies to build affordable housing and the power is free.

Please tell us how many of these towers would be needed to cover the intermittency of the current fleet of unreliables.

[Ali G]

You may be onto something there - have you applied for a research grant yet?

[Toltec]

rolando said:

Please tell us how many of these towers would be needed to cover the intermittency of the current fleet of unreliables.

Well, a 400 ton tank on a 100m tower would be good for about 100kWh - if my quick head scratch calc is right...

Therefore around a million should give a day's stored power for the UK.

Should provide housing for about half the population too.

Stick some solar panels on the roof and the jobs a good one.

[turbobloke]

[rolando]

Toltec said:

Well, a 400 ton tank on a 100m tower would be good for about 100kWh - if my quick head scratch calc is right...

Therefore around a million should give a day's stored power for the UK.

Should provide housing for about half the population too.

Stick some solar panels on the roof and the jobs a good one.

You're as bad as Paddy-n-p in confusing power and energy.
Try again.

[turbobloke]

Rolando said:

Paddy-n-p in confusing power and energy.

PnM was worse...remember MW/hr or was it kW/hr...wtf, power divided by time



Unreliables simply won't work, remember those highly qualified and highly green Google scientists and engineers working on RE<C, using fantasy technology (self-erecting turbines in robotic wind farms) to try and make it work then finding it still won't work.

[Ali G]

Just need to find a few big holes and jobs a good 'un.

[Toltec]

rolando said:

You're as bad as Paddy-n-p in confusing power and energy.
Try again.

Sorry, walking home at the time.

'stored energy to power the UK.'

[JD]

turbobloke said:

Unreliables simply won't work

You keep saying this, and I guess you have been for a very long time.

But with last year 29% of generation being from renewable sources, at what percentage are we going to see them not working?

Are the lights all of a sudden going to go out?

[rolando]

JD said:

You keep saying this, and I guess you have been for a very long time.

But with last year 29% of generation being from renewable sources, at what percentage are we going to see them not working?

Are the lights all of a sudden going to go out?

Correction: 16.5%
(Biomass, which is not renewable (see a few posts back) is counted under 'Other')
Source http://grid.iamkate.com

In answer to your last question, I wouldn't be surprised, unless industry and commerce is subjected to restrictions similar to those caused by the maniac Scargill back in the dark days of the three day week.

[turbobloke]

JD said:

turbobloke said:

Unreliables simply won't work

You keep saying this, and I guess you have been for a very long time.

But with last year 29% of generation being from renewable sources, at what percentage are we going to see them not working?

I may say it but it's not 'my' saying, it's the finding of the Google engineers and scientists from their RE<C study. Try a quick Google on it as you seem to have missed the numerous explanations when I said / posted it on previous occasions.

JD said:

Are the lights all of a sudden going to go out?

I already mentioned that politicians can get their mix fix by spending ever larger amounts of other people's money, quite recently iirc.

However in terms of your question about the lights, are you referring to an incident as per South Australia where Opposition Leader Steve Marshall commented “The independent inquiry into the unprecedented state-wide blackout should investigate, among other matters, the lack of baseload power generation in South Australia.”

An article covering the blackout mentioned cost anomalies which I raised previously in this thread when it said:

This analysis exposes the extraordinary energy market distortion that the politically mandated use of renewable energy has created.

Renewable energy cannot be reliably used without placing demands on electric system stability that can only be provided by dispatchable fossil power plants.

Yet renewable energy is given preference in use over fossil plants based on political policy mandates even though the costs associated with electric system stability must be provided by fossil plants which experience lower operating hours thus increasing fossil plant production costs.

Related comment "South Australia, the world’s renewable energy crash test dummy, is once again experiencing horrendous power price spikes and rolling blackouts, thanks to excessive reliance on wind, a lack of dispatchable power capacity, and high demand".

Despite attempts by unreliables activists to pin blame on extreme weather caused by climate change (predictable guff) the final comment is the most informative an damning and it comes from the Australian Energy Market Operator in an update to its preliminary report on the September 28 blackout. It identified six voltage disturbances which occurred in the network prior to downed transmission towers, triggering the “ride through voltage” systems of nine wind farms. The wind farm systems tripped as a result, causing them either to shut down or to reduce their output, pushing 445MW of electricity demand on to the Heywood interconnector linking South Australia to Victoria.
With the sudden rush in ­demand, the interconnector shut down to protect itself and isolated the state from the national grid."

http://aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/Update-to-report-i...

As above 9 of the 13 wind farms online at the time of the event did not ride through the six voltage disturbances, resulting in the loss of 445 MW. However the updated report shows that 5 'non-renewables' generators powered through the storm, in contrast to the wind farms that turned themselves off.

Does anyone know the latest position regarding those impacted by the South Oz unreliables failure, including mining and manufacturing businesses, and their lawsuit(s)?

[Gary C]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

The Google Fable quoted as gospel by yourself refers to a time of yore in Renewable energy terms - it ran from 2007 to 2011.

See above graphs and data of the prices then and now.
You pull it out of the cupboard and dust it off frequently.


The South Australia powercut one you like to use : Wind....... brought down a power line.
The Coal Power Station was mothballed.
The control systems to cope were not set up correctly. That is why the interconnected shut down - not the whimiscle 'protect itself' was a power cut.

?

The article does state that the wind farms grid disturbance equipment did disconnect the farm from the grid. It sounds almost identical to the kit at our station which detects events and trips , can't quite remember our settings but it's something like three or four dips below in so many seconds to cause a trip. Quite normal protection and can hit any large generator.

And interconnector would have tripped on over current.