The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I don't stand by the 'American' poll as the total picture on the subject but as per Toltec - it was least a relevant question to the subject in contrast to the guff question/poll posted by TB.
This diversion was caused by saying on the whole TB is in the minority to belief the views he does - he then (typically) pulled out a skewed find on the internet.
I simply Googled 'Poll of views of Climate Change' and posted the first tangible graph I saw.
Feel free to provide an alternate - the case is, TB is become the hideous incarnation of the boy who cried wolf.
Surely the wolves who are crying are the ones whose model predictions re.manmadeup climate change aren't materialising? This diversion was caused by saying on the whole TB is in the minority to belief the views he does - he then (typically) pulled out a skewed find on the internet.
I simply Googled 'Poll of views of Climate Change' and posted the first tangible graph I saw.
Feel free to provide an alternate - the case is, TB is become the hideous incarnation of the boy who cried wolf.
MYOB said:
Gary C said:
The future is power gen for the next 20 years is going to be politically lead, and that means low carbon.
.
Only the next 20 years? You're optimistic .
Gary C hit the spot.
Fortunately it may not take 20 years for the electorate to get the message. As soon as politicians get the message that voters have got the message, putting their re-election at risk, there is a chance of repeating what we saw when renewables subsidies started to be withdrawn and large numbers of companies with parasitic subsidy-farming business models went bust.
That's not to say the same situation will play out for the same reasons. Given that the cost of renewables is allowed NOT to reflect their true cost, subsidies may 'actually' (rather than pretending) have been removed by then, but politicians are fickle and if they think their re-election is at risk then policy can and does change...a week is a long time in politics, never miond 20 years.
turbobloke said:
Fortunately it may not take 20 years for the electorate to get the message. As soon as politicians get the message that voters have got the message, putting their re-election at risk, there is a chance of repeating what we saw when renewables subsidies started to be withdrawn and large numbers of companies with parasitic subsidy-farming business models went bust.
Do you honestly think that enough of the voting public know or even care about such things?Their priorities lie elsewhere & I think that the majority of the voting (and wider) public adopt the position that "they" pay politicians to do the jobs & take the decisions they they won't, can't or can't be arsed to do & take.
Not everyone can be well read in every subject but just imagine what the landscape would be like if a fraction of the dross typed out on social media was directed to the real issue in the UK & indeed the world.
What can be guaranteed though is when the cost of whatever energy policy disaster we end up with (going by the current programme), the same public will blame the fat-cats & the government of the day. That's guaranteed.
Toltec said:
Ali G said:
And it is Carbon Dioxide NOT Carbon.
Sheesh - how many arts grads doing poodle studies can there be?
Unless it is Carbon Monoxide, which is at least actually toxic to humans.Sheesh - how many arts grads doing poodle studies can there be?
Though I suppose Carbonic Acid is a problem too.
As does carbon tetrahydride.
Carbon itself maybe a diamond geezer or lead in the pencil.
What differentiates Carbon Dioxide are the bonds between C and O which have vibrational modes one of which resonates in the IR wavelength/frequency and which is in the dock accused of destroying the planet!
So - NOT Carbon.
Off for a glass of hydrogen to cool down.
And breath 2,3,4...
Ali G said:
Toltec said:
Ali G said:
And it is Carbon Dioxide NOT Carbon.
Sheesh - how many arts grads doing poodle studies can there be?
Unless it is Carbon Monoxide, which is at least actually toxic to humans.Sheesh - how many arts grads doing poodle studies can there be?
Though I suppose Carbonic Acid is a problem too.
As does carbon tetrahydride.
Carbon itself maybe a diamond geezer or lead in the pencil.
What differentiates Carbon Dioxide are the bonds between C and O which have vibrational modes one of which resonates in the IR wavelength/frequency and which is in the dock accused of destroying the planet!
So - NOT Carbon.
Off for a glass of hydrogen to cool down.
And breath 2,3,4...
I was agreeing with you about just saying Carbon, the form matters
Toltec said:
Ali G said:
Toltec said:
Ali G said:
And it is Carbon Dioxide NOT Carbon.
Sheesh - how many arts grads doing poodle studies can there be?
Unless it is Carbon Monoxide, which is at least actually toxic to humans.Sheesh - how many arts grads doing poodle studies can there be?
Though I suppose Carbonic Acid is a problem too.
As does carbon tetrahydride.
Carbon itself maybe a diamond geezer or lead in the pencil.
What differentiates Carbon Dioxide are the bonds between C and O which have vibrational modes one of which resonates in the IR wavelength/frequency and which is in the dock accused of destroying the planet!
So - NOT Carbon.
Off for a glass of hydrogen to cool down.
And breath 2,3,4...
I was agreeing with you about just saying Carbon, the form matters
The thing is that "Carbon" is pertinent to the thread because one of the primary political controls for the energy market to control feed sources is known universally as a "Carbon" tax.
The potentially for that term to be manipulated needs to be watched over. Splitting the blanket word into component compounds may be scientifically correct but has no place in allowing the masses to connect political messages to the effect it has or will have on their lives and pockets.
The potentially for that term to be manipulated needs to be watched over. Splitting the blanket word into component compounds may be scientifically correct but has no place in allowing the masses to connect political messages to the effect it has or will have on their lives and pockets.
Apologies for dragging this, kicking and screaming, back on topic 
Department of Energy projections to 2050 suggest that fossil fuels, not renewables, are the energy sources of America’s future
Department of Energy projections to 2050 suggest that fossil fuels, not renewables, are the energy sources of America’s future
rolando said:
Apologies for dragging this, kicking and screaming, back on topic
Department of Energy projections to 2050 suggest that fossil fuels, not renewables, are the energy sources of America’s future
I suspect that may be slightly influenced by the current administration though, you know, the one that thinks coal is clean.Department of Energy projections to 2050 suggest that fossil fuels, not renewables, are the energy sources of America’s future
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Edinburgh start-up Gravitricity has secured a £650,000 grant from Innovate UK to help with plans for energy storage projects at the sites of disused mines in Scotland.
The technology would utilise a weight of up to 2000 tonnes suspended in mine shafts by cables attached to winches.
The weight is winched to the top of the shaft to capture renewable power and then dropped to release it when needed, with the winches acting as generators, the company said.
Gravitricity said the grant will enable it to start building a scale demonstrator project later this year and find a site to install a full-scale prototype by 2020.
The company is also seeking investors, including those with mining experience, and suitable shafts to trial the technology.
Projects are planned between 1MW and 20MW, the company said.
Gravitricity managing director Charlie Blair (pictured) said: “As we rely more and more on renewable energy, there is an increasing need to find ways to store that energy – so we can produce quick bursts of power exactly when it is needed.”
£650k to demonstrate mgh.The technology would utilise a weight of up to 2000 tonnes suspended in mine shafts by cables attached to winches.
The weight is winched to the top of the shaft to capture renewable power and then dropped to release it when needed, with the winches acting as generators, the company said.
Gravitricity said the grant will enable it to start building a scale demonstrator project later this year and find a site to install a full-scale prototype by 2020.
The company is also seeking investors, including those with mining experience, and suitable shafts to trial the technology.
Projects are planned between 1MW and 20MW, the company said.
Gravitricity managing director Charlie Blair (pictured) said: “As we rely more and more on renewable energy, there is an increasing need to find ways to store that energy – so we can produce quick bursts of power exactly when it is needed.”
Love it!
When does booking open for school trips?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Turbo, isn't Lappeenranta University of Technology cited by you on many an occasion ?
Well, they have updated their views it seems :
How are the costs of large scale storage quantified? Is it the usual guesswork?Well, they have updated their views it seems :
saying said:
Renewable energy is increasingly a success story in emerging and developing markets. Last year, they were leading in green energy investments. China will have added around 54 GW solar PV capacity in 2017?—?three times more than any other country has ever done, which tops China’s total amount to 120 GW of solar PV installed capacity. India is catching up too, as its government announced to tender enough renewable energy projects to surpass 200 GW of new green capacity by 2022. According to financial analysts, by 2020 renewables will have become the cheapest form of power generation.
A global power system fully based on renewable energy is no longer a long-term vision, but a tangible reality. Yet, critics of renewable energy and fossil fuel as well as nuclear lobbyists often use solar and wind fluctuations as their major argument to hold on to the old system.
A new groundbreaking study by the Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) and the Energy Watch Group (EWG) refutes this argument once and for all.
The study proves that a 100% renewable electricity is more cost effective than the existing system, which is largely based on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Total levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) on a global average for 100% renewable electricity will decline to 52 €/MWh by 2050 (including curtailment, storage and some grid costs), compared to 70 €/MWh in 2015.
https://medium.com/thebeammagazine/100-renewable-electricity-worldwide-is-a-new-cost-effective-reality-595e33d42547A global power system fully based on renewable energy is no longer a long-term vision, but a tangible reality. Yet, critics of renewable energy and fossil fuel as well as nuclear lobbyists often use solar and wind fluctuations as their major argument to hold on to the old system.
A new groundbreaking study by the Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) and the Energy Watch Group (EWG) refutes this argument once and for all.
The study proves that a 100% renewable electricity is more cost effective than the existing system, which is largely based on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Total levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) on a global average for 100% renewable electricity will decline to 52 €/MWh by 2050 (including curtailment, storage and some grid costs), compared to 70 €/MWh in 2015.
For anyone visiting the Lappeenranta site have a look for their interactive map of how the entire world could go 100% reneweable generation by 2035 (or rather 2050 as they suggest elsewhere since 2035 is likely to be unrealistic by any measure).
It takes a bit of getting used to to but you can replay the suggested results of 100% renewables generation based on an entire year's worth of data for, iirc, 2015.
Certain parts of the world are a bit lacking in data. Much of central Africa for example.
That's a bit of a challenge given that much of the expected 3 to 4 billion increase in world population during the next 80 years is projected to occur in Africa.
Maybe migration solves the problem? It would have a very old historic tradition to support such a concept.
Whislt looking at the visualisation one could consider what it suggests for Electricity Generation in the UK and Northern Europe and consider the potential feasibility of the suggested requirement together with how likely any current and future Energy policy decisions might fit with it and at the same time produce the desired results.
It takes a bit of getting used to to but you can replay the suggested results of 100% renewables generation based on an entire year's worth of data for, iirc, 2015.
Certain parts of the world are a bit lacking in data. Much of central Africa for example.
That's a bit of a challenge given that much of the expected 3 to 4 billion increase in world population during the next 80 years is projected to occur in Africa.
Maybe migration solves the problem? It would have a very old historic tradition to support such a concept.
Whislt looking at the visualisation one could consider what it suggests for Electricity Generation in the UK and Northern Europe and consider the potential feasibility of the suggested requirement together with how likely any current and future Energy policy decisions might fit with it and at the same time produce the desired results.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff