The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Evanivitch]

turbobloke said:

It looks as though Bill Gates had some modelling done, and disagrees. This was posted at some point in the past probably in a climate thread.

'In an interview given to the Financial Times yesterday (Gates said) that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be “beyond astronomical”.'

Google's highly qualified, ultra-green and costly team of engineers and scientists agree on non-viability (see RE<C).

That's interesting.

Because Bill Gates is also a huge contributor to a Future Energy Fund.

A future energy fund that is investing in grid storage...

https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/6114...

[mondeoman]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-t...

That'll be the future sorted then...

[LongQ]

mondeoman said:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-t...

That'll be the future sorted then...

Interesting numbers even after the forecast that the cost of Lithium Batteries will drop to a third of current costs and that some hope to find cheaper options.

Give the target times involved they will need to create the battery tech, develop it to industrial scale and manufacture and install it somewhat speedily of California is to achieve its goals. Then hope that the State can still afford to pay them.

An interesting challenge.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Lest anyone should forget.

Windmills are neither clean nor green and they produce approx zero % of global energy requirements.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-...

Thing is, whilst some of that article may be factually correct, just because something makes up a small percentage of something doesn't make it pointless.

As our daily energy environment moves towards an electrically biased supply, and our dependance of fossil fuels reduces (note: not stops, just reduces) then things like wind turbines play a part. And to suggest that they are seriously environmentally damaging because they are made of steel (100% recyclable) and some concrete for the base (not that intrusive and easily removed without leaving a large degree of pollution) is a bit disingenuous imo.


For what it's worth, i believe that ultimately, the best energy generation tech is the one with the highest energy density (ie Fussion (ideally) or Fission), but as building a nuclear plant is fraught with socio-political hurdles, in the mean time there is no (significant) downside to installing wind turbines. They are cheap (per kWh), easy to install, easy to remove if/when we don't need them, can be recycled (the fibreglass blades are actually the least recyclable part) and if we build them offshore, "occupying an area the size of england" isn't an issue.

[mondeoman]

Max_Torque said:

Thing is, whilst some of that article may be factually correct, just because something makes up a small percentage of something doesn't make it pointless.

As our daily energy environment moves towards an electrically biased supply, and our dependance of fossil fuels reduces ......

Problem is that the electricity is all going to be fossil derived, from gas...

[Ali G]

mondeoman said:

Max_Torque said:

Thing is, whilst some of that article may be factually correct, just because something makes up a small percentage of something doesn't make it pointless.

As our daily energy environment moves towards an electrically biased supply, and our dependance of fossil fuels reduces ......

Problem is that the electricity is all going to be fossil derived, from gas...

In the very most uneconomic method.

[anonymous-user]

Ali G said:

mondeoman said:

Max_Torque said:

Thing is, whilst some of that article may be factually correct, just because something makes up a small percentage of something doesn't make it pointless.

As our daily energy environment moves towards an electrically biased supply, and our dependance of fossil fuels reduces ......

Problem is that the electricity is all going to be fossil derived, from gas...

In the very most uneconomic method.

But the critical point, the point most oft missed is that once energy transport is 'standardised' on electricity, the end load becomes agnostic to the actual energy source. I.E. drive an EV, and it doesn't care where the electricity it converts into useful work comes from. So, as the supply 'greens' then the end users green, and importantly, that greening happens without direct cost to the end user (ie they don't have to buy a new car just because the energy comes from a wind turbine rather than a coal fire generation asset.

Add to that fact that the fundamental physical properties of electricity and magnetism are intrinsically bi-directional, and so energy sharing, storage and metering become simplified and very efficient.

So no one is saying: "tomorrow everything will be powered by a wind turbine" but the move towards an electrical architecture for our energy is more of an enabler for future integration and a slow transition to that architecture.

[Condi]

Max_Torque said:

So no one is saying: "tomorrow everything will be powered by a wind turbine" but the move towards an electrical architecture for our energy is more of an enabler for future integration and a slow transition to that architecture.

In Ali's world, power is produced either by coal stations or wind turbines, there is seemingly no such thing as an energy mix.

And obviously, in his eyes, because the wind doesnt always blow, building any wind turbines at all is pointless and we should be running a fleet of 1960's coal sets instead.

[Gary C]

Condi said:

Max_Torque said:

So no one is saying: "tomorrow everything will be powered by a wind turbine" but the move towards an electrical architecture for our energy is more of an enabler for future integration and a slow transition to that architecture.

In Ali's world, power is produced either by coal stations or wind turbines, there is seemingly no such thing as an energy mix.

And obviously, in his eyes, because the wind doesnt always blow, building any wind turbines at all is pointless and we should be running a fleet of 1960's coal sets instead.

Ah, a voice of reason !


No place for that in this thread, hang you head in shame

[Condi]

Oh, and Ali - as you link to GridWatch so often, the windy-fans are currently supplying about 20% of UK demand and have done consistently across the day. Not too bad for the middle of summer. In winter when the wind blows more, they produce more power and do so at a time when demand is higher, too. Good thinking eh?

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

Max_Torque said:

So no one is saying: "tomorrow everything will be powered by a wind turbine" but the move towards an electrical architecture for our energy is more of an enabler for future integration and a slow transition to that architecture.

In Ali's world, power is produced either by coal stations or wind turbines, there is seemingly no such thing as an energy mix.

And obviously, in his eyes, because the wind doesnt always blow, building any wind turbines at all is pointless and we should be running a fleet of 1960's coal sets instead.

Coal fired = robust, reliable and cost effective. Is that not a good thing?

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

Oh, and Ali - as you link to GridWatch so often, the windy-fans are currently supplying about 20% of UK demand and have done consistently across the day. Not too bad for the middle of summer. In winter when the wind blows more, they produce more power and do so at a time when demand is higher, too. Good thinking eh?

More power? Do you mean like this?

[V8 Fettler]

Max_Torque said:

Ali G said:

mondeoman said:

Max_Torque said:

Thing is, whilst some of that article may be factually correct, just because something makes up a small percentage of something doesn't make it pointless.

As our daily energy environment moves towards an electrically biased supply, and our dependance of fossil fuels reduces ......

Problem is that the electricity is all going to be fossil derived, from gas...

In the very most uneconomic method.

But the critical point, the point most oft missed is that once energy transport is 'standardised' on electricity, the end load becomes agnostic to the actual energy source. I.E. drive an EV, and it doesn't care where the electricity it converts into useful work comes from. So, as the supply 'greens' then the end users green, and importantly, that greening happens without direct cost to the end user (ie they don't have to buy a new car just because the energy comes from a wind turbine rather than a coal fire generation asset.

Add to that fact that the fundamental physical properties of electricity and magnetism are intrinsically bi-directional, and so energy sharing, storage and metering become simplified and very efficient.

So no one is saying: "tomorrow everything will be powered by a wind turbine" but the move towards an electrical architecture for our energy is more of an enabler for future integration and a slow transition to that architecture.

The problem is, there are some tomorrows where effectively nothing is powered by a wind turbine.

[Ali G]

Condi said:

Max_Torque said:

So no one is saying: "tomorrow everything will be powered by a wind turbine" but the move towards an electrical architecture for our energy is more of an enabler for future integration and a slow transition to that architecture.

In Ali's world, power is produced either by coal stations or wind turbines, there is seemingly no such thing as an energy mix.

And obviously, in his eyes, because the wind doesnt always blow, building any wind turbines at all is pointless and we should be running a fleet of 1960's coal sets instead.

In Ali's world - there is full-on fission.

Ali understands that this well never happen.

[V8 Fettler]

Ali G said:

Condi said:

Max_Torque said:

So no one is saying: "tomorrow everything will be powered by a wind turbine" but the move towards an electrical architecture for our energy is more of an enabler for future integration and a slow transition to that architecture.

In Ali's world, power is produced either by coal stations or wind turbines, there is seemingly no such thing as an energy mix.

And obviously, in his eyes, because the wind doesnt always blow, building any wind turbines at all is pointless and we should be running a fleet of 1960's coal sets instead.

In Ali's world - there is full-on fission.

Ali understands that this well never happen.

No room for fusion in your world?

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

More power? Do you mean like this?

You've had to go back 18 months to prove that for 1 week in January the wind didnt blow as much as other weeks?

On average more wind power is produced in winter than in summer.

That is simply indisputable fact.

This thread is really quite incredible. My job is trading power, I understand how it works. You may have your opinions, but please, dont try and prove a general statement wrong with a 1 week period from 18 months ago, it really is pathetic.

[Condi]

Ali G said:

In Ali's world - there is full-on fission.

Ali understands that this well never happen.

Oh good.

So your answer to windmills (which are proven, working, and providing a significant amount of power into the grid) is something which so far has proved technologically impossible to do on anything other than a single molecule level despite billions of dollars being thrown at it over the last 50 years.

I'm glad we understand each other. I look forward to that unicorn flying past my window sometime soon.

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

More power? Do you mean like this?

You've had to go back 18 months to prove that for 1 week in January the wind didnt blow as much as other weeks?

On average more wind power is produced in winter than in summer.

That is simply indisputable fact.

This thread is really quite incredible. My job is trading power, I understand how it works. You may have your opinions, but please, dont try and prove a general statement wrong with a 1 week period from 18 months ago, it really is pathetic.

If the objective is to prevent grid collapse then averages and peaks are meaningless, it's the minimum output at any one time that's crucial.

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

If the objective is to prevent grid collapse then averages and peaks are meaningless, it's the minimum output at any one time that's crucial.

But where has anyone said that we would have a grid 100% reliant on wind turbines? Go find me the post if you think there is one.

Nowhere that I can see.

However, the renewable mix (solar/hydro/wind) does generate a reasonable proportion of the UK energy mix, and when combined with other assets (eg gas stations, peaking units, pumped storage) then the grid is perfectly stable. New technology will only further decrease our dependence on what is very expensive, dirty, and inflexible generation. With the Paris agreement and other Government policies we simply are not going to go back to coal stations, and even building a large gas station is not really what NG want. Bury your head in the sand all you like, but you'll just be left behind.

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

If the objective is to prevent grid collapse then averages and peaks are meaningless, it's the minimum output at any one time that's crucial.

But where has anyone said that we would have a grid 100% reliant on wind turbines? Go find me the post if you think there is one.

Nowhere that I can see.

However, the renewable mix (solar/hydro/wind) does generate a reasonable proportion of the UK energy mix, and when combined with other assets (eg gas stations, peaking units, pumped storage) then the grid is perfectly stable. New technology will only further decrease our dependence on what is very expensive, dirty, and inflexible generation. With the Paris agreement and other Government policies we simply are not going to go back to coal stations, and even building a large gas station is not really what NG want. Bury your head in the sand all you like, but you'll just be left behind.

If that's the case, then how did we arrive at the gas deficit warning earlier this year?

As someone who is involved in trading power, you'll no doubt be fully aware of the risks highlighted by the gas deficit warning in March 2018, but just in case you've forgotten:

https://www.utilitywise.com/2018/03/06/gas-deficit...

Article dated 06/03/2018

utilitywise said:

With high demand across Europe, supplies via flexible pipelines from Belgium and the Netherlands fell significantly. Through most of February, these pipelines were providing around 60mcm of supply a day. However, since the ‘Beast from the East’ began to bite, this fell closer to 30mcm.

utilitywise said:

Medium range storage was sending out at over 70mcm a day to meet the higher demand. Storage began the week 65% full with just under 1,000mcm in storage. The week saw 500mcm of this stock used and if this continues at the same rate, supplies will be empty by the end of this week (9 March).

utilitywise said:

There is now only 220mcm of gas stored at the UK’s three LNG terminals (Grain, Dragon, and South Hook), yet during the cold snap sendout peaked at over 80mcm/day. Were that rate to continue, LNG stocks would be empty within a week. This gas will have to be replenished but there are currently no tankers booked for the UK.

utilitywise said:

There is enough gas around to make it through the current cold snap, but if it is prolonged or there is a further spell of cold later in March, this could be very troublesome.