The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Mr GrimNasty]

Plenty of useful opinion and analysis here:

https://stopthesethings.com/

Windmills are not only hopelessly inefficient, they industrialize the landscape and seascape, they cause human health problems, the construction and operating noise seriously affects sea mammals, they are polluting (including radioactive waste) to make, they are a recycling plastic waste time-bomb, and the blades destroy millions of birds and bats.

One sickening example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lb6VeMaXy8

With bats and small birds they don't even need to hit them, the pressure wave explodes their lungs.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Very personal attack there - suggests something to fear or misunderstanding by general psychology terms.


And again, unfounded slander - reportable even perhaps ?


Surprising that you can't understand, and insist on being ignorant to change.

Oh do grow up.

[wc98]

Wayoftheflower said:

A few hundred extra ppm... but what's several orders of magnitude in an internet discussion? I don't know about you but rolling the dice on a new climate has little appeal to me, devil you know and all that.

Will wind power solve base load generation without huge storage investment? No. Is it a far better option than continuing to use and subsidise coal fired power generation? I think so.

nope, not a few hundred . i think there is still some uncertainty as to residence time in the atmosphere of the anthropogenic component as well. if we took 300 ppm out of the atmosphere right now i believe we would all be dead in short order. around 150 ppm is when the plants that give us oxygen give up the ghost.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Steady now -
I have never, professionally or here on PH claimed that 100% capacity by renewables can be achieved, and always advocated the need for a balance portfolio.

I'd happily challenge you or anyone to prove otherwise.



As above and infinitum - I am correcting wrong assumptions made by others on here - the usual sweeping statements, churlish and pithy mis-throws - not to mention blinded stupidity. (you all know who you are )

Policy et al can be thrown around by everyone else.

could you give the dafties in the snp a bell in your professional capacity and let them know they are dreaming then. it would be much appreciated http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00513324.pdf

[Wayoftheflower]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Al Gore and Paddy have the same vision for our future (obviously partaking the same hallucinogenic compounds).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/al-gore-pra...

If you'd like to read about the South Australian blackouts on a site that isn't backed by big oil try the far less biased Wiki

Spoiler alert, it wasn't because of wind power generation.

[Wayoftheflower]

wc98 said:

Wayoftheflower said:

A few hundred extra ppm... but what's several orders of magnitude in an internet discussion? I don't know about you but rolling the dice on a new climate has little appeal to me, devil you know and all that.

Will wind power solve base load generation without huge storage investment? No. Is it a far better option than continuing to use and subsidise coal fired power generation? I think so.

nope, not a few hundred . i think there is still some uncertainty as to residence time in the atmosphere of the anthropogenic component as well. if we took 300 ppm out of the atmosphere right now i believe we would all be dead in short order. around 150 ppm is when the plants that give us oxygen give up the ghost.

Yes a few hundred link and again if you're going to make statements about complex topics please LINK to source.

I'm not sure what relevance instantaneously removing 300ppm ~2,000,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has?

[babatunde]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

If the subject of aesthetics is to creep in to this thread- I truly have never managed to quantify the kind of venom displayed above against Turbines - which are not that frequently seen by the public, yet the broad brush acceptance by all for Pylons that cross cross the country- countryside and urban landscapes.
Far far more of a scar on the landscape yet 'from an aesthetic' point of view thoughtlessnessy overlooked

But, but pylon Good, turbine bad..... they ignore that fact that "windmills" have been around for centuries.


I find it hard to understand the argument that using non polluting renewable power supplies is a bad thing, surely on both an individual level and a societal level it makes sense, I was born in London and I'm old enough to remember smog, to read some opinions on here smog wasn't actually bad, it was just meddling politicians that made it seem that way.

No one on this thread has hypothesized that 100% of our power generation will come from renewables, or that the Utopia of free energy is just round the corner.

I fear that this thread is becoming more political and less technical, which of course is the PH way it's only a matter of time before we start chucking Red Bull cans

[rovermorris999]

Meanwhile, in the restb of the world...
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/07/coal-boom1600-new...

[Likes Fast Cars]

A simple comment here from a simpleton who has worked on these markets for 20 years now .....

You just cannot have 100% green renewable energy in the way these bloody fkwit politicians want to have it! It just will not work. It takes the right mix, and a balance between engineering (reality), and economics.

[carl_w]

BobToc said:

Coming to this late, but the real requirement is load balancing, whether it's fast response OCGTs, Dong's battery solution at Burbo Bank, something akin to Gigabattery, or more CCGTs. Given where the smaller scale stuff is bidding into capacity markets it's very hard to make the economics of CCGTs stack up, but maybe embedded benefits reform changes that.

Apparently the Dinorwig pumped storage power station can reach 1.32GW in 12 seconds. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/geeks_gui...

[Wayoftheflower]

rovermorris999 said:

Meanwhile, in the restb of the world...
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/07/coal-boom1600-new...

Another Heartland institute outlet, you may be familiar with their previous work on denying that smoking is a risk, what a coincidence they turn up lobbying against climate change prevention....

[LongQ]

Wayoftheflower said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Al Gore and Paddy have the same vision for our future (obviously partaking the same hallucinogenic compounds).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/al-gore-pra...

If you'd like to read about the South Australian blackouts on a site that isn't backed by big oil try the far less biased Wiki

Spoiler alert, it wasn't because of wind power generation.

Hmm.

You are still stuck in the "big Oil funds everything" era. Do you have any reliable proof of that? Or are you just parroting old stories?

Deferring to Wikipedia as a source of reliable information is always a little embarrassing. However if we overlook that for now can you explain how the failures had nothing to do with reliance on wind power generation compared to, for example, longer established electricity generation methods?

Referring the content of the Wiki page would be acceptable in this instance since you seem to be offering it as the source of your statement. If you based you statement on the original report rather than the Wiki precis feel free to reference the original instead.

That said we might need to take such a discussion over to the Political thread at some point. For now a common understanding of the analysis could have some pertinence to the effectiveness (or just the risks) of Electricity Generation in the UK. So here is a good place to consider it.

Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 12th July 11:53

[Ali G]

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/...

Yes please!

Presumably EU regs prevent UK government investment in UK business under competition rules.

[LongQ]

babatunde said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

If the subject of aesthetics is to creep in to this thread- I truly have never managed to quantify the kind of venom displayed above against Turbines - which are not that frequently seen by the public, yet the broad brush acceptance by all for Pylons that cross cross the country- countryside and urban landscapes.
Far far more of a scar on the landscape yet 'from an aesthetic' point of view thoughtlessnessy overlooked

But, but pylon Good, turbine bad..... they ignore that fact that "windmills" have been around for centuries.


I find it hard to understand the argument that using non polluting renewable power supplies is a bad thing, surely on both an individual level and a societal level it makes sense, I was born in London and I'm old enough to remember smog, to read some opinions on here smog wasn't actually bad, it was just meddling politicians that made it seem that way.

No one on this thread has hypothesized that 100% of our power generation will come from renewables, or that the Utopia of free energy is just round the corner.

I fear that this thread is becoming more political and less technical, which of course is the PH way it's only a matter of time before we start chucking Red Bull cans

Nope. Pylons are pretty crap as well.

But as they age they don't catch the eye so much and there are designs around that might improve the appearance and reduce the visual effect as replacement occurs in the future. Also they don't move. Thus they are less distracting to our visual senses. Aural senses as well, though I make no claim they are silent.

And far from acting as fauna reduction facilities it is not uncommon for birds, raptors especially, to use them for nesting. Plus they are, generally, useful every minute of every day.

Turbines, however, are generally larger, cover far more land area, move distractingly and are best sited where there is wind (of course). That tends to be in areas of what many think of a "natural beauty". Yep, pylons can blott such landscape too, but rarely so much of it and so obviously.

And let's not forget that the spread of so called wind farms, especially onshore facilities but offshore too as development spread, require even more pylons to be deployed to shift the production to where it can be consumed.

If we wished to do so, and felt the cost was justified, we could move power cables underground or, subject to technical challenges, re-route them under water. There is no obvious way that wind turbines could be hidden at any cost so far as I am aware. But if you know otherwise please share the information.

And, almost finally, no energy supply system is non-polluting according to any currently used definition of "polluting".

Finally finally,

"No one on this thread has hypothesized that 100% of our power generation will come from renewables, or that the Utopia of free energy is just round the corner. "

To ignore the attempts of politicians to massage their own egos whilst setting far future policy which, whether it eventually happens or not, will affect near term investment decisions for the electricity generation industry (and power/energy usage in general) seems to me to be a very short sighted thing to do in a thread related to "The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain".

[LongQ]

Ali G said:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/...

Yes please!

Presumably EU regs prevent UK government investment in UK business under competition rules.

That's less of a problem than planning regulations would be. And the likely local resistance to having anything like that nearby.

A lot of existing proposals for early deployment of SMR technology seem to be linked to offshore installations, possibly floating.

There is quite a lot of work going on with SMRs in the USA based on technology experience they have gleaned over decades with many nuclear powered subs and ships. Thus going offshore is hardly a huge leap of faith.

Interestingly RR are also involved with the development of autonomous ships and, looking somewhat further into the future, electric aeroplanes.

[Wayoftheflower]

LongQ said:

Wayoftheflower said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Al Gore and Paddy have the same vision for our future (obviously partaking the same hallucinogenic compounds).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/al-gore-pra...

If you'd like to read about the South Australian blackouts on a site that isn't backed by big oil try the far less biased Wiki

Spoiler alert, it wasn't because of wind power generation.

Hmm.

You are still stuck in the "big Oil funds everything" era. Do you have any reliable proof of that? Or are you just parroting old stories?

Deferring to Wikipedia as a source of reliable information is always a little embarrassing. However if we overlook that for now can you explain how the failures had nothing to do with reliance on wind power generation compared to, for example, longer established electricity generation methods?

Referring the content of the Wiki page would be acceptable in this instance since you seem to be offering it as the source of your statement. If you based you statement on the original report rather than the Wiki precis feel free to reference the original instead.

That said we might need to take such a discussion over to the Political thread at some point. For now a common understanding of the analysis could have some pertinence to the effectiveness (or just the risks) of Electricity Generation in the UK. So here is a good place to consider it.

Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 12th July 11:53

Hmm so you didn't bother to follow the LINK describing the funding of Wattsupwiththat? Here's another.

Absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about linking from wiki, if it tells you something you don't like, deal with it. If it's inaccurate, correct it.

But if you'd like everything directly then HERE is the 273 page report on the blackout, the conclusion of which is, well the short version is, you should read Wikipedia.

[XM5ER]

Wayoftheflower said:

Hmm so you didn't bother to follow the LINK describing the funding of Wattsupwiththat? Here's another.

Absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about linking from wiki, if it tells you something you don't like, deal with it. If it's inaccurate, correct it.

But if you'd like everything directly then HERE is the 273 page report on the blackout, the conclusion of which is, well the short version is, you should read Wikipedia.

WOTF, your links are utterly outdated and have been debunked thoroughly. That's why nobody is listening to you.
HTH

[LongQ]

Wayoftheflower said:

Hmm so you didn't bother to follow the LINK describing the funding of Wattsupwiththat? Here's another.

Heartland fingered by the Guardian and NYT? From 2012.

Is that it?

Guardian report based in something in DeSmogBlog? How incredibly unbiased!

Maybe this is why?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-abo...

From 2011. So more or less the same time.

But heck, they are both just blogs on the Internet so should be disregarded according to PH rules as set by a few of the posters here.

[Wayoftheflower]

XM5ER said:

WOTF, your links are utterly outdated and have been debunked thoroughly. That's why nobody is listening to you.
HTH

Have they? PLEASE LINK TO THIS DEBUNKING!

[rovermorris999]

Wayoftheflower said:

rovermorris999 said:

Meanwhile, in the restb of the world...
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/07/coal-boom1600-new...

Another Heartland institute outlet, you may be familiar with their previous work on denying that smoking is a risk, what a coincidence they turn up lobbying against climate change prevention....

You obviously don't know Joanne Nova's work. But that aside, whoever funds it, how about addressing the content rather than the messenger? Are those coal power stations not being built?
I don't give a flying fk who funds what, the veracity of what is said is the important thing.
I would love 'renewables' to work well and cheaply without direct subsidies and without indirect ones such as carbon pricing but sadly they don't.