The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
So you’ll feel safe enough to take up as a bet that ‘Renewables have no future’ ?
How much ?
I suspect you'll see a unicorn before that challenge is taken up. i'd go further, a Unicorn being ridden by a Pixie How much ?
As worded the so-called bet is a nonsense as it's exaggerated / generalised / hyperbolic.
Why not have a joint chuckle over a bet that NO renewables providers of ANY type anywhere will go bust in future? It's just as silly, and says just as little about pointless and expensive unreliables.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
He said it.
That sums up pretty much every post off yours in here TBH
Off turbobloke said:
nonsense as it's exaggerated / generalised / hyperbolic.
^^^^^^^^^That sums up pretty much every post off yours in here TBH
with you!Quite clearly it doesn't sum up pretty much every post of mine, as any casual inspection will confirm, but thanks for the irony and hypocrisy which I doubt you even noticed in knee-jerk mode.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The Cost for Decommsioning Offshore wind has been asked before on here.
Developers will need to spend between £1.28bn and £3.64bn to decommission 37 operational and under-construction offshore wind farms off the UK.
Thanks. What's that like as a percentage of the build costs, roughly?Developers will need to spend between £1.28bn and £3.64bn to decommission 37 operational and under-construction offshore wind farms off the UK.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Very much a case of How much was a piece of string.... a good database of the sites around the world is 4COffshore - https://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/windfarms.asp...
But size, scale and alike make the prices non linear. For example , Rampion is listed at £1.9B for the 400MW (116 small WTG's but quite current) yet the East Anglia One - next big current site - is £2.6B for the 714MW site with 102 x 7MW turbines on Jackets.
So maybe somewhere between 2 and 10%?But size, scale and alike make the prices non linear. For example , Rampion is listed at £1.9B for the 400MW (116 small WTG's but quite current) yet the East Anglia One - next big current site - is £2.6B for the 714MW site with 102 x 7MW turbines on Jackets.
Interested that they suggest removing foundations to 1m below seabed. That's got to be a hell of a job, sorely?
BBC relaying an SSE trading update about recent unexpected financial impacts of high gas prices and low wind for the past several weeks.
Now I think the current weather is entirely unrelated to any climate change effect claims since the last time I can recall something like this for this period of time was in 1976 when the main idea about climate change was the threat of imminent catastrophic cooling.
However, should people be concerned that long hot summers predicted in the future as the temperature remorselessly climbs would also lead to reduced wind availability (but increased solar) or is this particular st of meteorological circumstances unrelated in any way and merely a one off event that pops up every few decades? In effect just a summer period risk to be assessed and planned for in the same way that winter storms and extended periods of unusually cold weather also need to be planned for?
Do these risks help or hinder financial justifications for primary generation systems and the types of backup resources they might require?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44882862
Now I think the current weather is entirely unrelated to any climate change effect claims since the last time I can recall something like this for this period of time was in 1976 when the main idea about climate change was the threat of imminent catastrophic cooling.
However, should people be concerned that long hot summers predicted in the future as the temperature remorselessly climbs would also lead to reduced wind availability (but increased solar) or is this particular st of meteorological circumstances unrelated in any way and merely a one off event that pops up every few decades? In effect just a summer period risk to be assessed and planned for in the same way that winter storms and extended periods of unusually cold weather also need to be planned for?
Do these risks help or hinder financial justifications for primary generation systems and the types of backup resources they might require?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44882862
LongQ said:
Now I think the current weather is entirely unrelated to any climate change effect claims since the last time I can recall something like this for this period of time was in 1976 when the main idea about climate change was the threat of imminent catastrophic cooling.
However, should people be concerned that long hot summers predicted in the future as the temperature remorselessly climbs would also lead to reduced wind availability (but increased solar) or is this particular st of meteorological circumstances unrelated in any way and merely a one off event that pops up every few decades?
Spot on. Natural chaotic variability.However, should people be concerned that long hot summers predicted in the future as the temperature remorselessly climbs would also lead to reduced wind availability (but increased solar) or is this particular st of meteorological circumstances unrelated in any way and merely a one off event that pops up every few decades?
A certain Dr Judah Cohen from Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) recently discussed this, and I recall posting similar to the content below over on the climate thread.
According to Arctic Oscillation data analysis from Dr C earlier this month, persistent ridging/positive geopotential height anomalies in late spring and early summer centered across Northern Europe are predicted to persist with the pattern resulting in widespread above normal temperatures across Europe with the greatest positive departures focused across Northern Europe including the (UK. This overall pattern is likely to persist for a while longer (days not months!).
So it looks as though this '1976 summer repeat almost' has the potential to stretch into early August but only the data will tell (in time).
Nothing to do with carbon dioxide - there's still no visible causal human signal etc - and no assistance is needed from unreliables some of which are likely to remain unreliable for now.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
you seemed to gloss over the other aspect of 'volume'
Not so much energy is being demanded, ergo they are not selling so much.
I agree with the other aspects and / or their mix they have does not ideally suit the exact scenario we have underway. But their portfolio is changing.
Not so much demand because of the hot weather?Not so much energy is being demanded, ergo they are not selling so much.
I agree with the other aspects and / or their mix they have does not ideally suit the exact scenario we have underway. But their portfolio is changing.
Or not so much because of the solar infill?
If hot weather were to become the "norm" for UK summers for some reason would extended use of air conditioning become "usual" and so increase demand?
Why is demand down because of the hot weather? Refrigerators will be working hard in homes and retail environments. Too hot to cook (other than on a BBQ? Hmm. Not carbon free so presumably a target for a future ban.)
Is it normally so cold in our summers that people have the heating on?
Just where has the normal summer demand gone?
Consider that, in the future, it looks more and more likely that almost everything will be electrified in attempts to cut "carbon" emissions. (Assuming policies maintain the current path.)
So when there is no coal (2025 or before), possible problems of one sort or another with gas supplies, little prospect of making a lot more of biomass and Nuclear has been left to wither away once again, how do you get the transport system running, supplies to shops and, in a more general sense, keep the economy ticking over with a predominantly non-carbon supply? What level of excess generation is required in order to cover predicatable (even though rare) worst case scenarios?
Under sea interconnects?
Are they always a benefit? Could they sometimes be a liability if relied upon as part of a shared backup plan?
With mainly fossil fuel based generation (and for now ignoring the availability of fuel and considering just the plant capital cost and maintenance) the over-capacity built in to the system seemed to be about 10% at normal working loads with the option to push that (at least potentially) perhaps another 5% if things became really tricky.
That would be over and above peak Winter demand so, come the summer about 50% would be either "idle" or under planned maintenance for a few months.
To achieve the same level of coverage in the absence of fossil fuels, what level of solar/wind/storage would be required to deliver the same "safety margin" and how much would it be likely to cost?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
But do you agree with that? If so, what demand drops off in a somewhat hotter summer than we have come to expect?
I dont necessarily agree with it (the lack of demand despite air con etc) - simply stating that the webpage / article you linked to start your prophecy stated that, and you conveniently overlooked it and the points I made : SSE are not selling so much electricity in this recent weather. And their portfolio also does not suit the current situation.
So far as I can see from a very low resolution chart of demand for the past year, the level of demand does not look so different this year to last year.
The BBC article seems to be more or less a cut and paste of an SSE press release so maybe it's time to find that to see what it actually says and whether or not they offer an numbers.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
"The temperature in the UK across the 3 months to 30 June 2018 was 1.5 degrees centigrade warmer than the thirty-year average. This led to average domestic gas demand being around 10% lower than plan"
Yep, at first glance it looks like a gas based problem - especially if they have to forward contract for anticipated demand for domestic gas expectations.But they use the word "plan" rather than referring to an historically based forecast - so I suppose we need to consider what the UK gas demand has been in 2018 compared to a few previous years.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Which I have to point out, is totally against your first post against the original link.
How so?The BBC angle on the statement seems to unravel somewhat when one reads the Statement in its original form.
So the BBC seems to have fallen into spinning a message in some way and perhaps attempted to plant some ideas that have no basis in people's minds - especially if they only read the headline or skim the article.
The SSE original statement introduces some other possibilities.
Given the high demand in March is it really reasonable to suggest that some significant shortfall in financial numbers can be attributed to a few slightly warmer than usual spring and summer weeks in May and June? If so how were the planned numbers arrived at?
Have all of the other energy providers found themselves with similar problems? We may not know the answers to that question for a while.
Was there not much trumpeting (by the BBC among others) of how much 'renewable' energy was supplying of UK demand under ideal circumstances (50% approx)?
Yes there was!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40198567
Guess that was it all sorted then.
Funny that.
Yes there was!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40198567
Guess that was it all sorted then.
Funny that.
Ali G said:
Was there not much trumpeting (by the BBC among others) of how much 'renewable' energy was supplying of UK demand under ideal circumstances (50% approx)?
Yes there was!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40198567
Guess that was it all sorted then.
Funny that.
Those figures are engineered in any case. Gas and other sources could provide more but their contribution is wound down to let unreliables look good where possible.Yes there was!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40198567
Guess that was it all sorted then.
Funny that.
turbobloke said:
Those figures are engineered in any case. Gas and other sources could provide more but their contribution is wound down to let unreliables look good.
Politicians are trained to engineer figures - its what they do - and vaguely amusing!But they do need to stay in the sand pit and play with the kiddies.
Ali G said:
turbobloke said:
Those figures are engineered in any case. Gas and other sources could provide more but their contribution is wound down to let unreliables look good.
Politicians are trained to engineer figures - its what they do - and vaguely amusing!But they do need to stay in the sand pit and play with the kiddies.
Playing around in areas where they lack sufficient understanding is another matter. Politicians must reduce lemonade fizz! Less lemonade fizz is essential - who needs more greenery and higher crop yields! Oh s
t we haven't got enough lemonade fizz! Location Location Location
with europe in a fizz.https://www.economist.com/business/2018/07/05/shor...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff