The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Trollbot located this from 2015.
Norwegian hydro to power UK via long distance undersea interconnect.
http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/newsnorwegi...
Not sure if serious!
Norwegian hydro to power UK via long distance undersea interconnect.
http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/newsnorwegi...
Not sure if serious!
Ali G said:
See www.northsealink.comThe project is underway. The AC-DC converter stations should start construction next month. Tunnelling for the underground sections of capable have already commenced.
Whatever else, that first bullet at the NorthSeaLink link is telling.
helping both countries to meet domestic and international renewable and climate change targets
The primary basis for renewables spelt out, showing the lack of any basis.
Climate change targets are expensive and pointless, like renewables at decarbonisation levels.
There is no empirical data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in the only two datasets that can establish manmade climate change: no anthropogenic signal is visible in TOA radiative imbalance (energy) and there's no visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data.
Gigo models, non-consensus logical fallacies, belief statements even with % attached and from any so-called authority anyone cares to name cannot even touch this fundamental absence aka failing. This is based on evidence/empirical data not emotional loathing of anything, and it isn't O/T.
Gary C is correct when he says political will i.e. low carbon (dioxide) is at work for the foreseeable, if we say that over and over again but do nothing else then the thread is barely worthwhile. The fundamental problems with renewables (lack of any credible empirical basis for decarbonisation, intermittency, EROEI, storage apart from hydro worsening EROEI, energy security or rather lack of, grid instability, death of millions of birds of prey and bats each year, energy bill hikes etc) are where the discussion is or ought to be. This will be awkward for those operating politically / ideologically / emotionally / on a personal basis.
We know how foolish politicians can be and the foolish things they do, the question is how to prevent them going too far. Many a politically favoured scheme looks great at the outset and those in early get rich - in this case off the back of taxpayers. Then there's the future which is not a land of milk and honey option at the moment as detailed above.
helping both countries to meet domestic and international renewable and climate change targets
The primary basis for renewables spelt out, showing the lack of any basis.
Climate change targets are expensive and pointless, like renewables at decarbonisation levels.
There is no empirical data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in the only two datasets that can establish manmade climate change: no anthropogenic signal is visible in TOA radiative imbalance (energy) and there's no visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data.
Gigo models, non-consensus logical fallacies, belief statements even with % attached and from any so-called authority anyone cares to name cannot even touch this fundamental absence aka failing. This is based on evidence/empirical data not emotional loathing of anything, and it isn't O/T.
Gary C is correct when he says political will i.e. low carbon (dioxide) is at work for the foreseeable, if we say that over and over again but do nothing else then the thread is barely worthwhile. The fundamental problems with renewables (lack of any credible empirical basis for decarbonisation, intermittency, EROEI, storage apart from hydro worsening EROEI, energy security or rather lack of, grid instability, death of millions of birds of prey and bats each year, energy bill hikes etc) are where the discussion is or ought to be. This will be awkward for those operating politically / ideologically / emotionally / on a personal basis.
We know how foolish politicians can be and the foolish things they do, the question is how to prevent them going too far. Many a politically favoured scheme looks great at the outset and those in early get rich - in this case off the back of taxpayers. Then there's the future which is not a land of milk and honey option at the moment as detailed above.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
Some examples of 'the bulk of sites I link to' would be useful at this point as your claim (another baseless smear) is bogus.
The same goes for your fictional 'loathing or hatred' nonsense as my position on renewables is based on objective evidence and related data. In falsely describing the basis of my views as emotional you're misprepreseting my position as other thread participants will easily see, but it's worth pointing out.
I have linked previously to e.g. IEEE, RE<C related, National Grid, beyond that I've cited numerous peer-reviewed research publications, a series of academic papers which you've singularly failed to know about/respond to in any meaningful way.
Anvari et al
Drake et al
Keith et al
Polley et al
Sreedevi et al
Vautard et al
Weißbach et al.
Zhu et al
That's an alphabetical list from the last 20 pages of this thread (using my PH page settings) and in going back through those pages to list the papers it was very difficult if not impossible to see any meaningful responses from anyone on the pro-renewables PH active service list.
One comment on issues raised by one of the papers went something like "so to be clear you're saying that'; when it's obvious that the paper lead author and fellow authors were saying it, not me.
This repeated tactic of personalising the debate confirms that you (and others afopting the same approach) have little or nothing to offer by way of on-topic response, a point illustrated by your reply above which is full of baseless rhetoric and little else. As a result there's a lot of irony in your posts and similar offerings especially when you stand in your glass house throwing stones.
Where in the last 20 pages have I linked to some dastardly website you particularly object to (and why)? Anything material to offer? Great work. Keep it up!
Utter utter bThe same goes for your fictional 'loathing or hatred' nonsense as my position on renewables is based on objective evidence and related data. In falsely describing the basis of my views as emotional you're misprepreseting my position as other thread participants will easily see, but it's worth pointing out.
I have linked previously to e.g. IEEE, RE<C related, National Grid, beyond that I've cited numerous peer-reviewed research publications, a series of academic papers which you've singularly failed to know about/respond to in any meaningful way.
Anvari et al
Drake et al
Keith et al
Polley et al
Sreedevi et al
Vautard et al
Weißbach et al.
Zhu et al
That's an alphabetical list from the last 20 pages of this thread (using my PH page settings) and in going back through those pages to list the papers it was very difficult if not impossible to see any meaningful responses from anyone on the pro-renewables PH active service list.
One comment on issues raised by one of the papers went something like "so to be clear you're saying that'; when it's obvious that the paper lead author and fellow authors were saying it, not me.
This repeated tactic of personalising the debate confirms that you (and others afopting the same approach) have little or nothing to offer by way of on-topic response, a point illustrated by your reply above which is full of baseless rhetoric and little else. As a result there's a lot of irony in your posts and similar offerings especially when you stand in your glass house throwing stones.
Where in the last 20 pages have I linked to some dastardly website you particularly object to (and why)? Anything material to offer? Great work. Keep it up!
ksV8 Fettler said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
Some examples of 'the bulk of sites I link to' would be useful at this point as your claim (another baseless smear) is bogus.
The same goes for your fictional 'loathing or hatred' nonsense as my position on renewables is based on objective evidence and related data. In falsely describing the basis of my views as emotional you're misprepreseting my position as other thread participants will easily see, but it's worth pointing out.
I have linked previously to e.g. IEEE, RE<C related, National Grid, beyond that I've cited numerous peer-reviewed research publications, a series of academic papers which you've singularly failed to know about/respond to in any meaningful way.
Anvari et al
Drake et al
Keith et al
Polley et al
Sreedevi et al
Vautard et al
Weißbach et al.
Zhu et al
That's an alphabetical list from the last 20 pages of this thread (using my PH page settings) and in going back through those pages to list the papers it was very difficult if not impossible to see any meaningful responses from anyone on the pro-renewables PH active service list.
One comment on issues raised by one of the papers went something like "so to be clear you're saying that'; when it's obvious that the paper lead author and fellow authors were saying it, not me.
This repeated tactic of personalising the debate confirms that you (and others afopting the same approach) have little or nothing to offer by way of on-topic response, a point illustrated by your reply above which is full of baseless rhetoric and little else. As a result there's a lot of irony in your posts and similar offerings especially when you stand in your glass house throwing stones.
Where in the last 20 pages have I linked to some dastardly website you particularly object to (and why)? Anything material to offer? Great work. Keep it up!
Utter utter bThe same goes for your fictional 'loathing or hatred' nonsense as my position on renewables is based on objective evidence and related data. In falsely describing the basis of my views as emotional you're misprepreseting my position as other thread participants will easily see, but it's worth pointing out.
I have linked previously to e.g. IEEE, RE<C related, National Grid, beyond that I've cited numerous peer-reviewed research publications, a series of academic papers which you've singularly failed to know about/respond to in any meaningful way.
Anvari et al
Drake et al
Keith et al
Polley et al
Sreedevi et al
Vautard et al
Weißbach et al.
Zhu et al
That's an alphabetical list from the last 20 pages of this thread (using my PH page settings) and in going back through those pages to list the papers it was very difficult if not impossible to see any meaningful responses from anyone on the pro-renewables PH active service list.
One comment on issues raised by one of the papers went something like "so to be clear you're saying that'; when it's obvious that the paper lead author and fellow authors were saying it, not me.
This repeated tactic of personalising the debate confirms that you (and others afopting the same approach) have little or nothing to offer by way of on-topic response, a point illustrated by your reply above which is full of baseless rhetoric and little else. As a result there's a lot of irony in your posts and similar offerings especially when you stand in your glass house throwing stones.
Where in the last 20 pages have I linked to some dastardly website you particularly object to (and why)? Anything material to offer? Great work. Keep it up!
ksAbuse with no basis, content with no topical relevance, nothing to offer.
Ali G said:
Speaking personally, I would prefer to be advised of wtf is happening.
Heck, I may even agree!
Stifling information whilst imposing fiscal imposition has hallmarks of that which is dictatorial and which is not welcomed in a democracy.
I doubt anyone truly knows in detail what is happening.Heck, I may even agree!
Stifling information whilst imposing fiscal imposition has hallmarks of that which is dictatorial and which is not welcomed in a democracy.
As Paddy has shown us the technology is apparently changing rapidly and so initial plans and numbers, as General Eisenhower was reported as saying in WW2, are useless. But planning is essential.
The act of planning does not necessarily imply successful results will follow nor that they will be cost effective even if technically successful and feasible from a manufacturing and materials point of view.
It seems to be doubly ridiculous when known technology and supply channels mean that the only reason for chasing an unproven route and destroying a well proven one is based on a hypothesis that cannot be successfully tested by any recognised scientific approach to experimentation.
All of that said we can be fairly certain that there are quite a few people who know what they personally want to see happening and who will be working towards their objectives be they commercial or philosophical. They probably don't feel a need to share their objectives with anyone.
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 13th February 22:56
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Moving away from the children zone......
WindEurope have released their 2017 report -
https://windeurope.org/about-wind/statistics/europ...
Europe installed 16.8 GW (15.7 GW in the EU) of additional wind power capacity in 2017, marking a record year on annual installations.
With a total net installed capacity of 169 GW, wind energy remains the second largest form of power generation capacity in Europe, closely approaching gas installations.
2017 was a record year for both onshore and offshore installations. The EU added 12,526 MW onshore and 3,154 MW offshore.
Downloadable here: https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ab...
OK, lots of capacity. How much power did all that capacity actually produce and what did that represent as a percentage of the overall power requirement?WindEurope have released their 2017 report -
https://windeurope.org/about-wind/statistics/europ...
Europe installed 16.8 GW (15.7 GW in the EU) of additional wind power capacity in 2017, marking a record year on annual installations.
With a total net installed capacity of 169 GW, wind energy remains the second largest form of power generation capacity in Europe, closely approaching gas installations.
2017 was a record year for both onshore and offshore installations. The EU added 12,526 MW onshore and 3,154 MW offshore.
Downloadable here: https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ab...
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Wednesday 14th February 08:02
andymadmak said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Moving away from the children zone......
WindEurope have released their 2017 report -
https://windeurope.org/about-wind/statistics/europ...
Europe installed 16.8 GW (15.7 GW in the EU) of additional wind power capacity in 2017, marking a record year on annual installations.
With a total net installed capacity of 169 GW, wind energy remains the second largest form of power generation capacity in Europe, closely approaching gas installations.
2017 was a record year for both onshore and offshore installations. The EU added 12,526 MW onshore and 3,154 MW offshore.
Downloadable here: https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ab...
OK, lots of capacity. How much power did all that capacity actually produce and what did that represent as a percentage of the overall power requirement?WindEurope have released their 2017 report -
https://windeurope.org/about-wind/statistics/europ...
Europe installed 16.8 GW (15.7 GW in the EU) of additional wind power capacity in 2017, marking a record year on annual installations.
With a total net installed capacity of 169 GW, wind energy remains the second largest form of power generation capacity in Europe, closely approaching gas installations.
2017 was a record year for both onshore and offshore installations. The EU added 12,526 MW onshore and 3,154 MW offshore.
Downloadable here: https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ab...
Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Wednesday 14th February 08:02
- to what extent did the power produced follow demand?
- how was intermittency dealt with?
rolando said:
And add to Andy's question:
And to add to your questions that add to my questions..- to what extent did the power produced follow demand?
- how was intermittency dealt with?
- given that the renewables industry suggestion for dealing with the intermittency problem is "more renewables capacity", is there any evidence in the data that confirms that the significant increases in renewables capacity over recent years have reduced the intermittency problem to any meaningful extent?
andymadmak said:
rolando said:
And add to Andy's question:
And to add to your questions that add to my questions..- to what extent did the power produced follow demand?
- how was intermittency dealt with?
- given that the renewables industry suggestion for dealing with the intermittency problem is "more renewables capacity", is there any evidence in the data that confirms that the significant increases in renewables capacity over recent years have reduced the intermittency problem to any meaningful extent?
And in reply to yours: there is no evidence whatsoever that the significant increases in renewables capacity over recent years has reduced the intermittency problem to any meaningful extent.
rolando said:
andymadmak said:
rolando said:
And add to Andy's question:
And to add to your questions that add to my questions..- to what extent did the power produced follow demand?
- how was intermittency dealt with?
- given that the renewables industry suggestion for dealing with the intermittency problem is "more renewables capacity", is there any evidence in the data that confirms that the significant increases in renewables capacity over recent years have reduced the intermittency problem to any meaningful extent?
And in reply to yours: there is no evidence whatsoever that the significant increases in renewables capacity over recent years has reduced the intermittency problem to any meaningful extent.
I have just discovered this document that discusses the the CfD bids for future Electricity generation as awarded at the conclusion of the 2017 auction in September last year.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Of...
That is a subject we have discussed many times before and where I have expressed some doubt about the deliverability of the proposed projects at the price offered and observed that it seems very easy for the winning developer to just walk away when the time comes.
Paddy has suggested that is not the case and that the proposed developments are viable at the price, hinting that future auctions are likely to see even lower quotes - although one should point out that the price comparison is at 2012 prices.
Now it's not entirely clear what is and is not included in the costs for which the CfD offers have been made but let's assume that a comparative analysis to previous developments and offers is truly comparable for content and just consider the figures compared in the analysis within the document. It makes interesting reading.
Given the amount of offshore generation involved involved in the bid round - a significant increase compared to existing installation capacity and offshore providing nearly the whole potential output for the auction - if the developments don't actually happen in 4 to 5 years from now, for whatever reason, they would leave a considerable hole in the generation capability of whatever the present plan might be.
Whether that would matter is as yet unknown.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Of...
That is a subject we have discussed many times before and where I have expressed some doubt about the deliverability of the proposed projects at the price offered and observed that it seems very easy for the winning developer to just walk away when the time comes.
Paddy has suggested that is not the case and that the proposed developments are viable at the price, hinting that future auctions are likely to see even lower quotes - although one should point out that the price comparison is at 2012 prices.
Now it's not entirely clear what is and is not included in the costs for which the CfD offers have been made but let's assume that a comparative analysis to previous developments and offers is truly comparable for content and just consider the figures compared in the analysis within the document. It makes interesting reading.
Given the amount of offshore generation involved involved in the bid round - a significant increase compared to existing installation capacity and offshore providing nearly the whole potential output for the auction - if the developments don't actually happen in 4 to 5 years from now, for whatever reason, they would leave a considerable hole in the generation capability of whatever the present plan might be.
Whether that would matter is as yet unknown.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Right now they probably could not credibly do otherwise.
However we will have to wait to see what happens on the product price when they come on line.
Are you suggesting they are doing it due to credibility? However we will have to wait to see what happens on the product price when they come on line.
Which part exactly?
And you are suggesting they don’t know what they are doing with regards to price ? On what grounds ??
I would imagine they know exactly what they are planning to do according to how their industry, and those other businesses who are becoming interested in it, turn out over the coming years. But I might be wrong.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff