The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

He said the Grid Stability- notbyou levelnofbin built paranoia

If we run short of gas, the electricity supply grid collapses.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

He said the Grid Stability- notbyou levelnofbin built paranoia

If we run short of gas, the electricity supply grid collapses.

Yet you draw on that one example above ad nauseum - and unsurprisingly



The Grid did not collapse.

What factor of safety does your wind model work with Paddy? Look at the dates on the utilitywise article, three days of medium range storage left, less than seven days LNG. How close do we need to be to grid collapse?

As previously, the Herald of Free Enterprise didn't sink, until it did, Chernobyl didn't fail catastrophically, until it did. For both catastrophes, the warning signs were there beforehand.

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

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:

It was windy during the Beast from the East - had we had more wind turbines it would have reduced thermal generation requirements and thus gas demand would have been lower.

But please, I asked where anyone had claimed we could have a grid supplied by baseload wind?

[LongQ]

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.

There are many political stances around the worlds, including the UK, where plans for 100% renewable electricity generation - or indeed energy provision in some people's ambition - are from "renewable" resources.

If those plans win the day your "combined other assets", other than pumped storage if the storage can be created AND the excess capacity of the renewables is so great and the storage can be found to make use of the daily excess when is it is available, will be non-existent. That could be interesting.

However, as an energy trader you might be able to throw some light on the market that would help to explain some observations I make locally.

There is near me an industrial area that, some year ago, installed two relatively small turbines (by Paddy's standards) and put out various press releases to tell everyone that this was an investment intended to make them self sufficient for self generated on-site electricity to power the buildings and some other infrastructure for most of the time without having to call on the grid supply.

These two units seemed to run intermittently once they have overcome the initial startup problems but in recent years as I drive past the site they have seemed not to be in use at all. Even when they were spinning some year back there were time when wind conditions seemed likely to be viable for generation but no movement was to be observed.

Nopw about 2 or 3 years ago one of the multinational businesses on the same site doubled the size of their building and to allow that to happen a brand new high voltage feed was laid, underground, from the nearest point of supply under the roads in the village and all the way out to the location.

It recently occurred to me that since that time the turbine blades that once used to turn a little from time to time have hardly turned at all at any time I have been passing - and those times are quite random though the year.

So the question is - are the on-grid supplies and prices to run a 24/7 operation likely to be so much better than the cost of self generation that it makes it uneconomic to make use of the turbines despite the investment already made in them?

If that's unlikely to be the case then I can only speculate about the reasons they never seem to be operational. Presumably they are either broken in some way or too problematic to make it worth trying to run them but I suppose there may be other reasons that are not obvious.

Any suggestions?

[Condi]

LongQ said:

So the question is - are the on-grid supplies and prices to run a 24/7 operation likely to be so much better than the cost of self generation that it makes it uneconomic to make use of the turbines despite the investment already made in them?

If that's unlikely to be the case then I can only speculate about the reasons they never seem to be operational. Presumably they are either broken in some way or too problematic to make it worth trying to run them but I suppose there may be other reasons that are not obvious.

Any suggestions?

I dont have many suggestions as why they wouldn't be working other than some mechanical problem.

After the initial investment, the ongoing costs are minimal, and certainly below market prices. If they are eligible for renewable certificates as well then it should be a no brainer to run them as they effectively get paid to generate, and can then also save money by not having to buy from the grid.

There were a few manufacturers who set up in the early days (5-10 years ago) producing 'mid sized' turbines who have now gone bust, and so maybe getting spares is proving difficult?

Sorry, not very helpful.

[LongQ]

Condi said:

LongQ said:

So the question is - are the on-grid supplies and prices to run a 24/7 operation likely to be so much better than the cost of self generation that it makes it uneconomic to make use of the turbines despite the investment already made in them?

If that's unlikely to be the case then I can only speculate about the reasons they never seem to be operational. Presumably they are either broken in some way or too problematic to make it worth trying to run them but I suppose there may be other reasons that are not obvious.

Any suggestions?

I dont have many suggestions as why they wouldn't be working other than some mechanical problem.

After the initial investment, the ongoing costs are minimal, and certainly below market prices. If they are eligible for renewable certificates as well then it should be a no brainer to run them as they effectively get paid to generate, and can then also save money by not having to buy from the grid.

There were a few manufacturers who set up in the early days (5-10 years ago) producing 'mid sized' turbines who have now gone bust, and so maybe getting spares is proving difficult?

Sorry, not very helpful.

Thanks a lot for the ideas

That's pretty much what I thought. I would imagine they did qualify for ROCs at the time which was partly why I am puzzled given their published objective for the turbines. I have remember they had a complete grid supply outage a couple of years ago that lasted several hours. I don't think that could been related to the turbines nor caused by them but who knows.

I wonder what information I can turn up from the public domain that is Google (et al.)

[Condi]

V8 Fettler said:

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

Sorry, missed this one.

Robust, reliable and cost effective? Haha.

Coal sets are far more expensive than gas to run, and far less reliable. They really are technology from 100 years ago, compared with the 'jet engines' that are CCGT's. Just too many parts which can each break down and affect output. And they're really not very efficient - 32% efficient compared with 65%+ for the new gas turbines. In a world where CO2 emissions matter and carbon has a cost, that makes then uneconomic to run.

[Ali G]

Condi said:

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.

You do understand the difference between fission and fusion?

Fusion is in la-la-land - it may never happen (hope it does - but don't count on it)

And at this stage - everyone knows of the limitations of wind turbines, so there really is no point in having that discussion!

[PRTVR]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

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

Sorry, missed this one.

Robust, reliable and cost effective? Haha.

Coal sets are far more expensive than gas to run, and far less reliable. They really are technology from 100 years ago, compared with the 'jet engines' that are CCGT's. Just too many parts which can each break down and affect output. And they're really not very efficient - 32% efficient compared with 65%+ for the new gas turbines. In a world where CO2 emissions matter and carbon has a cost, that makes then uneconomic to run.

And wind mills have been around for more than than 100 years, yet they are acceptable ?
Gas is wonderful, untill you have a problem with supply, over the last few weeks wind has been producing minimal amounts we have been dependent on gas, a mix of different fuel sources including coal reduces our dependency and exposure to problems with supply.

[Ali G]

Condi said:

In a world where CO2 emissions matter and carbon has a cost, that makes then uneconomic to run.

That cost is a cost enhanced by politicians.

And it is Carbon DIOXIDE - not lumps of charcoal.

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

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:

It was windy during the Beast from the East - had we had more wind turbines it would have reduced thermal generation requirements and thus gas demand would have been lower.

But please, I asked where anyone had claimed we could have a grid supplied by baseload wind?

As always, there were windy days and there were days with less wind during the winter of 2017 - 2018.



There is a risk that you could build lots of wind generation and still end up with minimal power output from wind. Several screenshots on this thread of wind producing virtually zero; more worryingly, offshore was negative on at least one occasion this year i.e. parasitic.

Are you stating that wind doesn't supply baseload? If not, what does it supply? It can't be controlled, therefore it can't be effectively used for peak-lopping, unless we rely on chance.

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

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

Sorry, missed this one.

Robust, reliable and cost effective? Haha.

Coal sets are far more expensive than gas to run, and far less reliable. They really are technology from 100 years ago, compared with the 'jet engines' that are CCGT's. Just too many parts which can each break down and affect output. And they're really not very efficient - 32% efficient compared with 65%+ for the new gas turbines. In a world where CO2 emissions matter and carbon has a cost, that makes then uneconomic to run.

Gas cannot be regarded as robust or reliable, we nearly ran out earlier this year. We have previously stockpiled months of coal, what's the most gas we can stockpile? Two weeks?

In a sane world, we would burn gas at the final point at which energy is required e.g. people's homes, factories, offices, hospitals etc. We certainly shouldn't use it for base load.

Isn't there enough information, data and logical argument on the climate change thread to undermine the proposition that man-made CO2 is creating climate change?

[LoonyTunes]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Isn't there enough information, data and logical argument on the climate change thread to undermine the proposition that man-made CO2 is creating climate change?

They're busy telling pilots they don't know anything about jet engines on that thread.

[Ali G]

LoonyTunes said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Isn't there enough information, data and logical argument on the climate change thread to undermine the proposition that man-made CO2 is creating climate change?

They're busy telling pilots they don't know anything about jet engines on that thread.

We are - and it is hilarious!

[robinessex]

Of course pilots know enough about jet engines to operate them, using the correct buttons and levers. Be completely fked if asked to diagnose a fault, lift the engine cover, and fix it.

[turbobloke]

V8 Fettler said:

Isn't there enough information, data and logical argument on the climate change thread to undermine the proposition that man-made CO2 is creating climate change?

Sure, there has been for ages. All that comes back from the agw religion's faithful followers, as also seen in this thread, is a rotating selection of non-points (shooting the messenger / sarc / abuse / fallacies / verbiage).

It's making the point about no causal data linked to human activity even more compelling due to the lack of absolutely any material response except, basically "the data don't matter" and "we believe climate model gigo which is demonstrably wrong".

What's to laugh about

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

blah

Paddy-Evidence strikes again.

Shooting the messenger / sarc / abuse / fallacies / verbiage won't suffice except to other faithful types of course.

The thread title remains

[turbobloke]

Hold the front page! Common sense occurs in the USofA!!

Politician's attempt to force costly unreliables on ratepayers is falling apart (it says):

http://www.cfact.org/2018/07/25/tom-steyers-plan-t...

[Condi]

turbobloke said:

Hold the front page! Common sense occurs in the USofA!!

Politician's attempt to force costly unreliables on ratepayers is falling apart (it says):

http://www.cfact.org/2018/07/25/tom-steyers-plan-t...

Welcome to the internet.

Where any opinion, no matter how strange, or how unlikely, can be backed up by some un-referenced website written by someone with no more idea about a subject than you or I.

website says said:

An investigation by Arizonans for Affordable Electricity — a campaign that opposes the renewable mandate proposal

And there we go... whoever would have thought an investigation by a group opposing the policy found reasons for it to be wrong or inaccurate.




This thread is totally devoid of any critical thinking or thought, and attempts to bring reason to it are met with straw man arguments or hypothetical situations.


Ammmmmm ooooooouuut.

[turbobloke]

Article says: dozens of individuals with felony criminal records - names known with crimes from second degree murder to vehicular homicide - were registered by well-funded unreliables campaign group to collect signatures, a violation of state law

Article says: thousands of gathered signatures forged / lacked proper documentation / outright fraudulent, reducing the total to below half the number required

Questions ^^ being answered atm so we shall see.