The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
So for clarity now, it seems the goal posts have been moved by the 'Anti Renewables' lot ?
Is it now accepted that the renewable energy is cheaper than Fossil and Nuclear ?
This results in the direction of the argument is about the continuity of supply ?
Just so I know what backtracking has been made by some of the 'its too expensive lot'
No, without subsidy its still more expensive than gas. By a long way. Maybe coal too if carbon costs are not added. Nuclear is unclear. The true cost of renewables (except hydro) must include the back up costs. Is it now accepted that the renewable energy is cheaper than Fossil and Nuclear ?
This results in the direction of the argument is about the continuity of supply ?
Just so I know what backtracking has been made by some of the 'its too expensive lot'
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
OK, so the Goalposts now include 'backup' - Gotcha.
A while ago everyone simply said it was too expensive, but I guess haters need to keep ahead of the advances?
If reliable, backup reserve generation is required, rather than a nice to have, then of course it's a part of the cost.A while ago everyone simply said it was too expensive, but I guess haters need to keep ahead of the advances?
I've recently been studying electric cars. And in the discussion re cars, I've learnt a few things.
Firstly there's a lot of ideas out there about storing energy on a large scale. My personal favorite at the moment is concerning Ammonia, basically as a method of storing hydrogen.
Imagine if we had a 'huge' excess of renewable energy. A combination of wind, tidal, solar, wave - you name it.
And we had some capacity in standby diesel generation.
And we had load demand.
And we had larger national grids across Europe, or even further.
Excess ammonia could be used as a clean transport fuel, and as a fertiliser.
We could store excess electricity in Ammonia (hydrolysis of water), and then we could run out diesel standby generators on ammonia. We could manage demand, and import / export electricity depending on demand / production / cost.
It's hugely expensive, but so was World war 2, but technically, it's possible.
And we don't have to make 100% step change now, we could start building capacity over the next decade or 2 with no major issues. I do think we need to be careful how we cost things - we don't truly know the cost of global warming yet.
Firstly there's a lot of ideas out there about storing energy on a large scale. My personal favorite at the moment is concerning Ammonia, basically as a method of storing hydrogen.
Imagine if we had a 'huge' excess of renewable energy. A combination of wind, tidal, solar, wave - you name it.
And we had some capacity in standby diesel generation.
And we had load demand.
And we had larger national grids across Europe, or even further.
Excess ammonia could be used as a clean transport fuel, and as a fertiliser.
We could store excess electricity in Ammonia (hydrolysis of water), and then we could run out diesel standby generators on ammonia. We could manage demand, and import / export electricity depending on demand / production / cost.
It's hugely expensive, but so was World war 2, but technically, it's possible.
And we don't have to make 100% step change now, we could start building capacity over the next decade or 2 with no major issues. I do think we need to be careful how we cost things - we don't truly know the cost of global warming yet.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
V8 Fettler said:
What is the minimum utilisation ratio for offshore to date?
I saw this question earlier and am unsure what it is you are actually asking (or I suspect needling at)Can you try to reword it / explain and I will try to answer
silentbrown said:
V8 Fettler said:
Minimum value for (power generated by offshore wind at any given moment) / (total installed capacity for offshore wind)
I think you're after "capacity factor" here. But "minimum" in what timeframe? Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I'm glad I'm not the only one a little perplexed.
Total offshore capacity (I am assuming we are talking UK as that is the thread?) is 5,355.520MW
I have no beef in either direction but is that maximum capacity assuming all wind turbines operating at 100% of capacity? Is the mean capacity a better measure (or maybe the median or mode -- it's a long time since I've done statistics)? Wind currently showing as 0.43 GW at http://gridwatch.templar.co.ukTotal offshore capacity (I am assuming we are talking UK as that is the thread?) is 5,355.520MW
I guess this is going to be a naïve question but wouldn't the wind farms be better off pointing to the south-west where the prevailing wind comes from? So in the Celtic Sea? Although I guess the English Channel/North Sea is shallower so easier to build on.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." So, as far as wind power is concerned, what is that reaction? Are we altering the weather by altering wind? Will this in turn have an adverse effect, taken to extremes?
Solar power seems fine. The reaction is heat, yes? Oh, hang on... all those cars generating heat around the globe. You could call it... global warming.
Hydrogen then... more heat, and water. Lots of water. Where does water go? Back to altering the weather again!
Solar power seems fine. The reaction is heat, yes? Oh, hang on... all those cars generating heat around the globe. You could call it... global warming.
Hydrogen then... more heat, and water. Lots of water. Where does water go? Back to altering the weather again!
Edited by DJMC on Monday 10th July 22:49
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
wc98 said:
does not have to be dead calm, just wind speed below the useful threshold for generating electricity. there are many days where that will happen,both summer and winter.
Threshold for power generation of a modern turbine ?
i would imagine for generating something it would above 6mph ,and meaningful (in terms of renewables anyway ) 12 mph plus. DJMC said:
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." So, as far as wind power is concerned, what is that reaction? Are we altering the weather by altering wind? Will this in turn have an adverse effect, taken to extremes?
Solar power seems fine. The reaction is heat, yes? Oh, hang on... all those cars generating heat around the globe. You could call it... global warming.
Hydrogen then... more heat, and water. Lots of water. Where does water go? Back to altering the weather again!
i am glad at least one other person on the planet appears interested in this,same goes for tidal. the limited amount of info i can find on wind says a localised warming is created around wind farms.Solar power seems fine. The reaction is heat, yes? Oh, hang on... all those cars generating heat around the globe. You could call it... global warming.
Hydrogen then... more heat, and water. Lots of water. Where does water go? Back to altering the weather again!
Edited by DJMC on Monday 10th July 22:49
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
s2art said:
No, without subsidy its still more expensive than gas. By a long way. Maybe coal too if carbon costs are not added. Nuclear is unclear. The true cost of renewables (except hydro) must include the back up costs.
OK, so the Goalposts now include 'backup' - Gotcha.A while ago everyone simply said it was too expensive, but I guess haters need to keep ahead of the advances?
I'm sure you know full well that the total system costs to the consumers should always include connection and distribution and some element for backup in case of failure.
Nothing has changed except that when reliable and disapatchable backup is built into the infrastructure the question about cost are mostly answered already.
The amount of duplication compared to maximum expected demand is simply the overhead of product to demand . The costs will vary according to the fuels deployed but if one assumes that the mix is broadly base load for about 40% and then some relatively fast responding systems for the top up to demand on demand you have everything covered and the costs can be easily worked out.
Moreover it is possible to devised a rota of scheduled production that means the plant can be used effectively, have planned maintenance schedules and an opportunity to earn money to pay for itself. All basic economics.
Renewables can be as cheap as you like in production - make them free if it makes you feel better. Still no good if they are not able to deliver any output. Hardly any better if they can deliver some output but by no means enough.
In that sort of situation the entire demand would need to come from an alternative source - a source that has the capacity to generate enough output to satisfy demand which most likely will be at or above a predetermined peak level.
And that will cost.
It will cost to build.
It will cost to maintain.
And it will likely be very unreliable through lack of use unless run off-line on a regular basis. Which would rather defeat the objective.
If you run it on-line often enough ... what is the point of duplicating the resource with an intermittent supply thgat caries its own costs?
South Australia is ahead of the curve with experience in that area and they are hoping the Musk and Tesla can help them out although as I understand it they can only afford to install about 1/3rd of the capacity they really need for the new turbine array with which the battery will co-exist. I presume they hope that Tesla will fail to deliver, Musk will give them the installation free and they can then spend the original budget on the same again to get to 2/3 of the required capacity.
After thyat they would need to hope that Tesla continues to prosper for a while and then start saving the cents for the replacement battery system in 10 to 15 years time.
Bear in mind their mates in Tasmania have experience of batteries at King Island.
And it is still expensive according to the figures I have seen if you don't cherry pick certain bids. If you say that picture is changing rapidly and will continue to do so - fine. It may well do for a period. No doubt there will be a lot of pressure on the existing technologies to make them either quit., convert or up their prices.
One good way to force them to increase priced is to make their operations more expensive by making them less efficient and taking fewer hours of generation. Pretty much what the EU has done for Coal in the UK, though I note that Germany seems to have headed the other way on some pretext or other.
The problem you face with your "ever cheaper" mantra is that if you can make a case for a very high proportion of wind to make renewables a 100% option (as the Politicians seems to be having a breast beating competition about) then you will have to kill off everything else to make it viable. Even competition form solar during daylight hours will be bad news for a wind based producer seeking to optimise their returns in the absence of any subsidies or compensation payments. That would have to affect LCoE somewhere down the line.
Tell me, from what you know and taking variability into account, if the industry needed to guarantee that it could always produce at least 40% (just 40% - pretty much base load) of peak demand under any wind conditions, what plate capacity of total installations would be required to fulfil that objective and how would that compare with what might be generated during a peak output process?
At normal demand rates how much of the generating capacity would need to be curtailed - representing costs for the operators but no income in the absence of any subsidies or special payments?
I will start to believe that the cheapness will eventually appear when I hear reports about electricity in the future, at some point after the huge initial investment, that the price of electricity delivered to the consumer will fall rapidly. Nothing like that has been reported so far and my bill estimate leaps once again this year which suggests nothing good will happen to the market price in the near future.
On that basis I don't really care if turbine generated electricity is getting cheaper than it was - it is still not cheap and it seem unlikely that it ever will be in real terms.
One day soon I hope to get back the reports that are considering the "100% renewables" model that so much of what passes for Power Generation policy seems to be chasing. Although I'm not sure why it is necessary to do so since the lack of garments on the Emperor really should be plain for all to see.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
carl_w said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Not sure if Serious.
Serious, at least London Array and Thanet are in the Channel, right? I only looked this stuff up after flying over them (DUS->LCY). And so the picture was fly that path and not Rampion, in the channel?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I text a friend at SiemensGamesa earlier on the back of it.
He said : "Depends on type and add-on products but between 10 and 13 m/s"
Higher than I thought tbh, so 20mph
might just be for the new larger turbines. i am sure i read somewhere a few years back it was a fair bit lower than 20 mph for smaller turbines. He said : "Depends on type and add-on products but between 10 and 13 m/s"
Higher than I thought tbh, so 20mph
carl_w said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Not sure if Serious.
Serious, at least London Array and Thanet are in the Channel, right? I only looked this stuff up after flying over them (DUS->LCY). Given the shape and the number of towers in your picture is the London Array.
Here's a link to the NASA version of your shot.
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords...
You may need to download it and open it properly to see the details that are of interest.
LongQ said:
Paddy,
I'm sure you know full well that the total system costs to the consumers should always include connection and distribution and some element for backup in case of failure.
Nothing has changed except that when reliable and disapatchable backup is built into the infrastructure the question about cost are mostly answered already.
The amount of duplication compared to maximum expected demand is simply the overhead of product to demand . The costs will vary according to the fuels deployed but if one assumes that the mix is broadly base load for about 40% and then some relatively fast responding systems for the top up to demand on demand you have everything covered and the costs can be easily worked out.
Moreover it is possible to devised a rota of scheduled production that means the plant can be used effectively, have planned maintenance schedules and an opportunity to earn money to pay for itself. All basic economics.
Renewables can be as cheap as you like in production - make them free if it makes you feel better. Still no good if they are not able to deliver any output. Hardly any better if they can deliver some output but by no means enough.
In that sort of situation the entire demand would need to come from an alternative source - a source that has the capacity to generate enough output to satisfy demand which most likely will be at or above a predetermined peak level.
And that will cost.
It will cost to build.
It will cost to maintain.
And it will likely be very unreliable through lack of use unless run off-line on a regular basis. Which would rather defeat the objective.
If you run it on-line often enough ... what is the point of duplicating the resource with an intermittent supply thgat caries its own costs?
South Australia is ahead of the curve with experience in that area and they are hoping the Musk and Tesla can help them out although as I understand it they can only afford to install about 1/3rd of the capacity they really need for the new turbine array with which the battery will co-exist. I presume they hope that Tesla will fail to deliver, Musk will give them the installation free and they can then spend the original budget on the same again to get to 2/3 of the required capacity.
After thyat they would need to hope that Tesla continues to prosper for a while and then start saving the cents for the replacement battery system in 10 to 15 years time.
Bear in mind their mates in Tasmania have experience of batteries at King Island.
And it is still expensive according to the figures I have seen if you don't cherry pick certain bids. If you say that picture is changing rapidly and will continue to do so - fine. It may well do for a period. No doubt there will be a lot of pressure on the existing technologies to make them either quit., convert or up their prices.
One good way to force them to increase priced is to make their operations more expensive by making them less efficient and taking fewer hours of generation. Pretty much what the EU has done for Coal in the UK, though I note that Germany seems to have headed the other way on some pretext or other.
The problem you face with your "ever cheaper" mantra is that if you can make a case for a very high proportion of wind to make renewables a 100% option (as the Politicians seems to be having a breast beating competition about) then you will have to kill off everything else to make it viable. Even competition form solar during daylight hours will be bad news for a wind based producer seeking to optimise their returns in the absence of any subsidies or compensation payments. That would have to affect LCoE somewhere down the line.
Tell me, from what you know and taking variability into account, if the industry needed to guarantee that it could always produce at least 40% (just 40% - pretty much base load) of peak demand under any wind conditions, what plate capacity of total installations would be required to fulfil that objective and how would that compare with what might be generated during a peak output process?
At normal demand rates how much of the generating capacity would need to be curtailed - representing costs for the operators but no income in the absence of any subsidies or special payments?
I will start to believe that the cheapness will eventually appear when I hear reports about electricity in the future, at some point after the huge initial investment, that the price of electricity delivered to the consumer will fall rapidly. Nothing like that has been reported so far and my bill estimate leaps once again this year which suggests nothing good will happen to the market price in the near future.
On that basis I don't really care if turbine generated electricity is getting cheaper than it was - it is still not cheap and it seem unlikely that it ever will be in real terms.
One day soon I hope to get back the reports that are considering the "100% renewables" model that so much of what passes for Power Generation policy seems to be chasing. Although I'm not sure why it is necessary to do so since the lack of garments on the Emperor really should be plain for all to see.
End of thread really for renewables. Please force our politicians to read this post.I'm sure you know full well that the total system costs to the consumers should always include connection and distribution and some element for backup in case of failure.
Nothing has changed except that when reliable and disapatchable backup is built into the infrastructure the question about cost are mostly answered already.
The amount of duplication compared to maximum expected demand is simply the overhead of product to demand . The costs will vary according to the fuels deployed but if one assumes that the mix is broadly base load for about 40% and then some relatively fast responding systems for the top up to demand on demand you have everything covered and the costs can be easily worked out.
Moreover it is possible to devised a rota of scheduled production that means the plant can be used effectively, have planned maintenance schedules and an opportunity to earn money to pay for itself. All basic economics.
Renewables can be as cheap as you like in production - make them free if it makes you feel better. Still no good if they are not able to deliver any output. Hardly any better if they can deliver some output but by no means enough.
In that sort of situation the entire demand would need to come from an alternative source - a source that has the capacity to generate enough output to satisfy demand which most likely will be at or above a predetermined peak level.
And that will cost.
It will cost to build.
It will cost to maintain.
And it will likely be very unreliable through lack of use unless run off-line on a regular basis. Which would rather defeat the objective.
If you run it on-line often enough ... what is the point of duplicating the resource with an intermittent supply thgat caries its own costs?
South Australia is ahead of the curve with experience in that area and they are hoping the Musk and Tesla can help them out although as I understand it they can only afford to install about 1/3rd of the capacity they really need for the new turbine array with which the battery will co-exist. I presume they hope that Tesla will fail to deliver, Musk will give them the installation free and they can then spend the original budget on the same again to get to 2/3 of the required capacity.
After thyat they would need to hope that Tesla continues to prosper for a while and then start saving the cents for the replacement battery system in 10 to 15 years time.
Bear in mind their mates in Tasmania have experience of batteries at King Island.
And it is still expensive according to the figures I have seen if you don't cherry pick certain bids. If you say that picture is changing rapidly and will continue to do so - fine. It may well do for a period. No doubt there will be a lot of pressure on the existing technologies to make them either quit., convert or up their prices.
One good way to force them to increase priced is to make their operations more expensive by making them less efficient and taking fewer hours of generation. Pretty much what the EU has done for Coal in the UK, though I note that Germany seems to have headed the other way on some pretext or other.
The problem you face with your "ever cheaper" mantra is that if you can make a case for a very high proportion of wind to make renewables a 100% option (as the Politicians seems to be having a breast beating competition about) then you will have to kill off everything else to make it viable. Even competition form solar during daylight hours will be bad news for a wind based producer seeking to optimise their returns in the absence of any subsidies or compensation payments. That would have to affect LCoE somewhere down the line.
Tell me, from what you know and taking variability into account, if the industry needed to guarantee that it could always produce at least 40% (just 40% - pretty much base load) of peak demand under any wind conditions, what plate capacity of total installations would be required to fulfil that objective and how would that compare with what might be generated during a peak output process?
At normal demand rates how much of the generating capacity would need to be curtailed - representing costs for the operators but no income in the absence of any subsidies or special payments?
I will start to believe that the cheapness will eventually appear when I hear reports about electricity in the future, at some point after the huge initial investment, that the price of electricity delivered to the consumer will fall rapidly. Nothing like that has been reported so far and my bill estimate leaps once again this year which suggests nothing good will happen to the market price in the near future.
On that basis I don't really care if turbine generated electricity is getting cheaper than it was - it is still not cheap and it seem unlikely that it ever will be in real terms.
One day soon I hope to get back the reports that are considering the "100% renewables" model that so much of what passes for Power Generation policy seems to be chasing. Although I'm not sure why it is necessary to do so since the lack of garments on the Emperor really should be plain for all to see.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
silentbrown said:
V8 Fettler said:
Minimum value for (power generated by offshore wind at any given moment) / (total installed capacity for offshore wind)
I think you're after "capacity factor" here. But "minimum" in what timeframe? Total offshore capacity (I am assuming we are talking UK as that is the thread?) is 5,355.520MW
This is based on 'active' but even now there is three big projects also in build, with a heap more in the next two years. It will be circa 8GW then.
What figure do you want to use?
Surely for the "Minimum value for (power generated by offshore wind at any given moment" would for the negative amongst you all be circa Zero ?
Thus a pointless equation ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff