The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I guess if the usual gobs
tes hadn't made this thread untenable to Condi, he would been in the best place to give a view.
Well said.tes hadn't made this thread untenable to Condi, he would been in the best place to give a view.What makes this forum great is that people freely give their knowledge and expertise and make these threads interesting.
It’s always a shame when those that clearly know what they are talking about get fed up having to argue with the usual blaggers above talking rubbish.
Ali G said:
My vote (as it always has been)
Is for full-on fission
We have the very best talent to manage construction and whatever risks will not happen.
And yet you yourself don't believe it will happen?Is for full-on fission
We have the very best talent to manage construction and whatever risks will not happen.
Ali G said:
In Ali's world - there is full-on fission.
Ali understands that this well never happen.
Ali understands that this well never happen.
Evanivitch said:
Ali G said:
My vote (as it always has been)
Is for full-on fission
We have the very best talent to manage construction and whatever risks will not happen.
And yet you yourself don't believe it will happen?Is for full-on fission
We have the very best talent to manage construction and whatever risks will not happen.
Ali G said:
In Ali's world - there is full-on fission.
Ali understands that this well never happen.
Ali understands that this well never happen.
Was there a point of discussion that you wish to make?
StanleyT said:
Is it possible regular posters on here could state what they would like the future of power gen in the UK to be and then we discuss the arguments rather than all against or all for positions.
My take, with 2 biased points,
1 coal (so many family out of a job over the years but that is because the technology wasn't pursued in the UK for gasification - we could have been a world leader),
2 nuclear (10 years in there and would like to see it come back if only for all the efforts of many colleagues, though with Sellafield reprocessing shut down in the next few years according to the NDA are we building a new Selloffafield dump for the 2100s....).
So in 2025, I'd like UK to be.......
5-10% solar
15-25% wind
5% tidal
5% hydro (inc pumped storage*)
20% (would love to say 25%+ but it ain't gonna happen) nuclear
1-5% Biosystems, e.g. burning sewage / landfill degradation gases? / Incineration of waste / local CHP schemes for councils?
50% gas? Or snake oil fired turbines?
2% Drax if they keep going.
Missing bits balanced out by grid balancing* of some form? (Hydro or batteries).
I'd love coal to go on, we missed so many development chances as a country in the dash for AGRs Hartlepool and Seaton Carew being places where there was innovative mining / buring of quality coal, then the miners strike killed everything off. But coal as was isn't the way so accept that.
Stated by some posters early in the thread.My take, with 2 biased points,
1 coal (so many family out of a job over the years but that is because the technology wasn't pursued in the UK for gasification - we could have been a world leader),
2 nuclear (10 years in there and would like to see it come back if only for all the efforts of many colleagues, though with Sellafield reprocessing shut down in the next few years according to the NDA are we building a new Selloffafield dump for the 2100s....).
So in 2025, I'd like UK to be.......
5-10% solar
15-25% wind
5% tidal
5% hydro (inc pumped storage*)
20% (would love to say 25%+ but it ain't gonna happen) nuclear
1-5% Biosystems, e.g. burning sewage / landfill degradation gases? / Incineration of waste / local CHP schemes for councils?
50% gas? Or snake oil fired turbines?
2% Drax if they keep going.
Missing bits balanced out by grid balancing* of some form? (Hydro or batteries).
I'd love coal to go on, we missed so many development chances as a country in the dash for AGRs Hartlepool and Seaton Carew being places where there was innovative mining / buring of quality coal, then the miners strike killed everything off. But coal as was isn't the way so accept that.
In the short term, how does your model prevent another gas deficit warning as per earlier this year? We can't rely on gas or wind, we could rely on coal, we sit on 20 trillion tonnes of the stuff.
El stovey said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I guess if the usual gobstes hadn't made this thread untenable to Condi, he would been in the best place to give a view.
Well said.tes hadn't made this thread untenable to Condi, he would been in the best place to give a view.What makes this forum great is that people freely give their knowledge and expertise and make these threads interesting.
It’s always a shame when those that clearly know what they are talking about get fed up having to argue with the usual blaggers above talking rubbish.
Go on then. Present your expertise in Power Generation or that of your preferred sources.
Paddy:
Condi indicated some expertise in energy trading (or was it electricity trading?) which was great but seemed to have no inclination to stick with any conviction to put his/her point and knowledge across.
That's a shame. Youe seemingly applaud the decision for some reason. Condi's was a very brief foray into the forum and from a specific point of view.
It would be great if someone who understands the trading aspect of energy could use their historic knowledge of the way things have worked so far to predict how the markets will expect things to happen in the future. But it seems that is not to be the case. Disappointing. But I understand that people maybe don't feel any personal need to contribute to a particular subject for more than the odd comment that seems meaningful to them.
Paddy, what is it that brings you back here time after time when you claim all of the discussion, such as it is, is so pointless? Just can't let go?
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 7th August 15:11
LongQ said:
El stovey said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I guess if the usual gobstes hadn't made this thread untenable to Condi, he would been in the best place to give a view.
Well said.tes hadn't made this thread untenable to Condi, he would been in the best place to give a view.What makes this forum great is that people freely give their knowledge and expertise and make these threads interesting.
It’s always a shame when those that clearly know what they are talking about get fed up having to argue with the usual blaggers above talking rubbish.
Go on then. Present your expertise in Power Generation or that or your preferred sources.
Paddy:
Condi indicated some expertise in energy trading (or was it electricity trading?) which was great but seemed to have no inclination to stick with any conviction to put his/her point and knowledge across.
That's a shame. Youe seemingly applaud the decision for some reason. Condi's was a very brief foray into the forum and from a specific point of view.
It would be great if someone who understands the trading aspect of energy could use their historic knowledge of the way things have worked so far to predict how the markets will expect things to happen in the future. But it seems that is not to be the case. Disappointing. But I understand that people maybe don't feel any personal need to contribute to a particular subject for more than the odd comment that seems meaningful to them.
Paddy, what is it that brings you back here time after time when you claim all of the discussion, such as it is, is so pointless? Just can't let go?
The obvious way to spot trolling as above is that the target isn't people on PH but the authors of reports, sources of data, and critiques from profesionally qualified persons, which pro-renewables activists/supporters cannot cope with. That's when the abuse and false accusations arise as a desperate backstop when faith or dogma are challenged.
Prof Helm report is not 'the usual' from 'blaggers talking rubbish'.
RE<C analysis and findings are not 'the usual' from 'blaggers talking rubbish'.
EROEI calculations are not 'the usual' from 'blaggers talking rubbish'.
Data about HMG agreeing 4x market rate for windfarm electricity for 15 years ahead is not 'the usual' from 'blaggers talking rubbish'.
As happens, the actual 'usual' and anything close to blagging comes from other than the trolls' targets.
The very acts of whining and blame transfer as above from PnM and El s divers the thread further and is presumably designed to stifle debate, so anyone not returning may have reasons other than those claimed above. Either way, staying around or not in any thread is a personal choice, and posts within the rules aren't going to stop because somebody stays or goes.
Not that trolling is within the posting rules but there are times when what's posted is so hypocritical it's better left for thread participants to see.
LongQ said:
El Stovey:
Go on then. Present your expertise in Power Generation or that or your preferred sources.
None whatsoever. The point is that people that do know what they’re talking about make these threads worth reading. Once you lot bore them off, the thread just ends up like your echo chamber climate threads, with loads of people that don’t seem to know anything pretending they do. Go on then. Present your expertise in Power Generation or that or your preferred sources.
Any impartial reader interested in a subject will tell you they’d rather read expert opinions on here than political dogma.
El stovey said:
LongQ said:
El Stovey:
Go on then. Present your expertise in Power Generation or that or your preferred sources.
None whatsoever. The point is that people that do know what they’re talking about make these threads worth reading. Once you lot bore them off, the thread just ends up like your echo chamber climate threads, with loads of people that don’t seem to know anything pretending they do. Go on then. Present your expertise in Power Generation or that or your preferred sources.
Any impartial reader interested in a subject will tell you they’d rather read expert opinions on here than political dogma.
turbobloke said:
The very acts of whining and blame transfer as above from PnM and El s divers the thread further and is presumably designed to stifle debate, so anyone not returning may have reasons other than those claimed above. Either way, staying around or not in any thread is a personal choice, and posts within the rules aren't going to stop because somebody stays or goes.
Listening to the same 5 of you myopically droning on in every climate thread, spouting the same dogma and waffle on each thread, isn’t debate. It’s an echo chamber.Here we had someone interesting that knows stuff and kindly passing on their knowledge and as usual they get bored of your pompous waffling on and leave.
It’s actually you stifling debate.
El stovey said:
Listening to the same 5 of you myopically droning on in every climate thread, spouting the same dogma and waffle on each thread, isn’t debate. It’s an echo chamber.
Here we had someone interesting that knows stuff and kindly passing on their knowledge and as usual they get bored of your pompous waffling on and leave.
It’s actually you stifling debate.
Is it possible to drone on 'myopically'?Here we had someone interesting that knows stuff and kindly passing on their knowledge and as usual they get bored of your pompous waffling on and leave.
It’s actually you stifling debate.
If you are encountering a short sighted person following you and who will not take 'no' for an answer - the answer is easy.
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Listening to the same 5 of you myopically droning on in every climate thread, spouting the same dogma and waffle on each thread, isn’t debate. It’s an echo chamber.
Here we had someone interesting that knows stuff and kindly passing on their knowledge and as usual they get bored of your pompous waffling on and leave.
It’s actually you stifling debate.
Is it possible to drone on 'myopically'?Here we had someone interesting that knows stuff and kindly passing on their knowledge and as usual they get bored of your pompous waffling on and leave.
It’s actually you stifling debate.
If you are encountering a short sighted person following you and who will not take 'no' for an answer - the answer is easy.
Specsavers?
Contary to the latest El s whine, what various people are doing is no more than providing the other side of the story that renewables activists/supporters aren't used to seeing (certainly not MSM) and their frustration at not coping with this results in ad homs/trolling and blame transfer.
Meawhile on-topic...and both are 2018 so the PnM sell-by-date excuse won't work (again).
Early Repairs to 500 Wind Turbines £0.5 Billion
Costs including repair boat chartering and allowing for lost generation and income are put at £1 million per turbine (Siemens).
Offshire Wind Fiasco as Renewables Industry Faceas $billions for Early Repairs
Ørsted is facing the repair of ~2,000 wind turbines because the leading edge of their blades has become worn down after just a few years operating at sea.
Easily found but probably not so easily on the usual suspects' websites, based on the first pages of an online search (reporting offshore turbine repairs) having read the information elsewhere.
robinessex said:
Why can't we use clean burn coal technology. We've have lots of the dam stuff.
Because they are having problems getting it to work? https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608191/clean-co...El stovey said:
Listening to the same 5 of you myopically droning on in every climate thread, spouting the same dogma and waffle on each thread, isn’t debate. It’s an echo chamber.
Here we had someone interesting that knows stuff and kindly passing on their knowledge and as usual they get bored of your pompous waffling on and leave.
It’s actually you stifling debate.
Genuine question : Is it your view that the protagonists for renewable energy should be allowed to go unchallenged? I must have asked half a dozen times, in as constructive a way as possible, just how P+M and those that think like him think that wind turbines and solar panels can overcome their intermittency problem, especially in the middle of a harsh winter such as we have seen occasionally in the past. Here we had someone interesting that knows stuff and kindly passing on their knowledge and as usual they get bored of your pompous waffling on and leave.
It’s actually you stifling debate.
The trouble is I never get a satisfactory answer. It's always "interconnections, batteries and using less energy" or in some cases "technology will provide".
If pushed very hard about just how robust the renewables based grid will be under severe conditions P+M will usually start being snide and insist that we will never have as harsh a winter again as (say ) 1947 or 1962.
Now, I am sorry, but that kind of non answer or blatant disregard for the weather evidence of the past 70 years does not represent a sensible energy policy. If you keep on challenging it, you get dismissed as spouting the same old tired rhetoric.... but the reality is that the answers to the hard questions simply have not been provided.
And we know why that is...because renewables like wind and solar are NOT the answer, at least to anything like the scale that the generators would have you believe. Yet as a country we are investing billions in this technology which does not provide energy security for our most vulnerable at their times of greatest need (such as in winter)
Moreover, as more and more electric vehicles pour onto the road, there simply is not the power generation capacity to charge all those units up overnight as well!
It's like the emperors new cloths all over again, with renewables proponents openly talking about taking power FROM the EVs when they are plugged into the grid, and nobody challenging where the energy is going to come from to put it back so we can all go to work in the morning.
And the batteries themselves....which still don't work as people imagine them to do, and which probably won't be a viable storage solution on any meaningful scale for several decades to come.
But we're supposed to suck all this up and not challenge it because, well, we've challenged it so many times before? When the answers start to make sense, maybe the challenges will stop!!!
andymadmak said:
[1] Moreover, as more and more electric vehicles pour onto the road, there simply is not the power generation capacity to charge all those units up overnight as well!
[2]
It's like the emperors new cloths all over again, with renewables proponents openly talking about taking power FROM the EVs when they are plugged into the grid, and nobody challenging where the energy is going to come from to put it back so we can all go to work in the morning.
[3]
And the batteries themselves....which still don't work as people imagine them to do, and which probably won't be a viable storage solution on any meaningful scale for several decades to come.
[1] The average driver does, less than 8000 miles per year, about 22 miles a day. That equates to about 7 kWh per car. That's assuming no one chargers during the day and that those with much larger batteries (40kwh and greater) even feel the need to plug-in every night. Also many with larger batteries will rapid charge throughout the week.[2]
It's like the emperors new cloths all over again, with renewables proponents openly talking about taking power FROM the EVs when they are plugged into the grid, and nobody challenging where the energy is going to come from to put it back so we can all go to work in the morning.
[3]
And the batteries themselves....which still don't work as people imagine them to do, and which probably won't be a viable storage solution on any meaningful scale for several decades to come.
Even those that do larger mileage will likely only be drawing 7 kW for 5 or so hours in the depth of night.
[2] As above, drivers don't need to utilise their whole battery on their daily commute. A 60kWh battery will be most comfortable between 20-80% state of charge. But if you only need 10% of that per day then you can allow the rest to discharge at peak times and still have 3 times (utilising the lower 20%) your daily need available.
[3] Domestic battery storage is very much alive right now. Is it economic? No. But does it practically work to allow excess solar and off-peak energy use? Very much yes.
Grid storage is a different matter.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff