The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
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.
No personal experience to bring to the discussion? Fine. No problem.
But no sources that you rely on for your opinion and that you would like to offer? Poor response.
Then you have the temerity to suggest that those who would like to discuss the subject and obtain the apparently expert views are forcing the experts to give up. Poor experts - but why would they care one way or the other.
To be quite frank if I was a newcomer to the thread faced with anti-discussion bi-partisan back and forth tossing of personal opinions from any number of people who seems to have nothing but opinions about a different subject - certainly NOT the Future of Power Generation in Great Britain - then I would probably not hang around long either.
Why bother? As An expert one might expect to be paid for the knowledge not share it for free with any number of people who won't listen in cluttering up the few that might. And in any case - it's a job and most likely not a crusade.
So long as you keep telling people that posting here is a waste of time despite showing no signs of departing yourself (or yourselves as I don't wish to leave anyone out) they will likely assume that you are right without trying to hard to check the facts. Heck, even the OP never made it past the first post.
Certainly there are better and more rewarding places to read about Future Power Generation than PistonHeads. In the main in those places a range of opinions can be read and considered and most people who post regularly and seriously have something to say that has relevance and is supported in some way by their work experiences, often a deep involvement with practical generation backed up with a questioning mind.
Opinions may differ, often strongly, but at least there is usually a good discussion and some interesting analysis with rarely any of the silly and extended "you're all in a cult" padding comments that people present as their sole contribution when they have nothing of interest to say.
Still, this place, this thread and PH in general, is what it is and it's probably not reasonable to expect anything more no matter how important the subject might be.
Having met a cross section of PHers a few years ago, a couple of whom still post here from time to time in threads I find interesting, it seemed that the wider population of the site might well consist of many intelligent, well educated, open minded free thinkers who could see things from different points of view and discuss accordingly. Whether that is as evident today as it was then is less clear.
Still, it is only a car interest based forum so not really important in any way.
And, of course, anybody can be anyone as a persona on here without the need to be themselves at all.
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 7th August 21:05
Evanivitch said:
[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.
It does depend how many days it will be before you can charge to 80%+ again, if we get periods of several days of high rate supply due to lack of input you will want to have several days of range and house supply in hand.ETA - better if you type all of the words in the sentence your head.
Edited by Toltec on Tuesday 7th August 17:08
turbobloke said:
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.
https://order-order.com/2018/02/27/early-repairs-5...
and
https://www.thegwpf.com/offshore-wind-fiasco-green...
Talking of Specsavers, you might want to read the second one properly - it's not ~2,000 wind turbines, but just under ~2,000 wind turbine BLADES . There are up to 646 turbines possibly affected in total
Not entirely clear from the Order Order link, but aren't the UK turbines included in the 646 figure mentioned in the GWPF article?
I seem to recall this being discussed in this thread about 6 months ago (when the articles were first posted) and PnM explaining that they were actually modifying the blades to improve the efficiency and this was expected to increase the energy generated by them over the lifetime (possibly to even outweigh the cost of these repairs).
rscott said:
Adding the links
https://order-order.com/2018/02/27/early-repairs-5...
and
https://www.thegwpf.com/offshore-wind-fiasco-green...
Talking of Specsavers, you might want to read the second one properly - it's not ~2,000 wind turbines, but just under ~2,000 wind turbine BLADES . There are up to 646 turbines possibly affected in total
The symbol ~ means approximately. My research, reading and adding up are OK. Siemens' early repairs have included Anholt as well as the London Array. Add in Simec Atlantis (Scotland) and others I can't recall offhand but already the total of offshore turbines not blades requiring early repar to date is ~2000 with illustrated examples at the above links. IIRC a PHer working in this area posted to the effect that the number and cost of such repairs as published doesn't cover what's actually happening.https://order-order.com/2018/02/27/early-repairs-5...
and
https://www.thegwpf.com/offshore-wind-fiasco-green...
Talking of Specsavers, you might want to read the second one properly - it's not ~2,000 wind turbines, but just under ~2,000 wind turbine BLADES . There are up to 646 turbines possibly affected in total
The published cost is astronomical.
Peter Plagemann of the Fraunhofer Institute for Production Technology and Applied Material Science said:
Maintenance and repair costs of offshore wind turbines over the years add up to be a hundred times the cost of the new turbine itself.
There are opportunities!https://www.indeed.co.uk/Wind-Turbine-Repair-jobs
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 7th August 18:27
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Peter Plagemann is talking out of his arse too.
Thanks for the credible data including costings confirming your...OK there was nothing ^^.This latest shoot-the-messenger / reasoning by assertion / play the man not the ball post upholds your standards in this regard..
Appreciated.
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
Adding the links
https://order-order.com/2018/02/27/early-repairs-5...
and
https://www.thegwpf.com/offshore-wind-fiasco-green...
Talking of Specsavers, you might want to read the second one properly - it's not ~2,000 wind turbines, but just under ~2,000 wind turbine BLADES . There are up to 646 turbines possibly affected in total
The symbol ~ means approximately. My research, reading and adding up are OK. Siemens' early repairs have included Anholt as well as the London Array. Add in Simec Atlantis (Scotland) and others I can't recall offhand but already the total of offshore turbines not blades requiring early repar to date is ~2000 with illustrated examples at the above links. IIRC a PHer working in this area posted to the effect that the number and cost of such repairs as published doesn't cover what's actually happening.https://order-order.com/2018/02/27/early-repairs-5...
and
https://www.thegwpf.com/offshore-wind-fiasco-green...
Talking of Specsavers, you might want to read the second one properly - it's not ~2,000 wind turbines, but just under ~2,000 wind turbine BLADES . There are up to 646 turbines possibly affected in total
The published cost is astronomical.
Peter Plagemann of the Fraunhofer Institute for Production Technology and Applied Material Science said:
Maintenance and repair costs of offshore wind turbines over the years add up to be a hundred times the cost of the new turbine itself.
There are opportunities!https://www.indeed.co.uk/Wind-Turbine-Repair-jobs
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 7th August 18:27
To remind you
turbobloke said:
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
That would be impressive for Ørsted as a quick check of the web suggests they only had 1,000 turbines in 2016, so not sure how the could have a repair bill for twice that number already.London array is included in the 646 figure too, according to the second link.
Tldr: turbobloke misrepresents facts and distorts figures to support his claims about turbine repair, despite continually accusing others of getting their facts wrong.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
It’s not about ‘believers’ or otherwise but being able compose a sensible thread with useful content.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Peter Plagemann is talking out of his arse too.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Would you like a Plunger?
You seem to have popped on to the thread solely to bring up your old s
t.
You seem to have popped on to the thread solely to bring up your old s
t.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Don't be so stupid.
Sensible? Useful content?Paddy_N_Murphy said:
TB is pulling up old news we have discussed to infinitum, but is not absorbed in the five man echo chamber.
Old news is often known as history, previous experience or pertinent information.It is worth checking if it has been superceded and TB should do that, however if you possess more up to date information please feel free to link to it.
On another subject, the ongoing CO2 shortage due to ammonia production plants being down for maintenance or failure made me wonder, if ammonia could be used as energy storage where would we get CO2 for food products etc?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
rolando said:
If you have superior knowledge on this subject you have two options:
1. contribute fully to the discussion or
2. stay out of it.
I have added many comments, offered information, timescales and costs to the blades erosions on these pages. 1. contribute fully to the discussion or
2. stay out of it.
We have discussed them at length.
I am privy to the pricing and costs.
These are commercial documents covered by NDA's and alike and have no place here or to be shared.
I have stated all of this before.
My contributions have been either discounted or the general modus operandi here is when an armchair expert is exposed as being incorrect, they go quiet and return days later on an entirely different subject. And then wash rinse repeat their incorrect information at a later date hoping it is either forgotten of can be seen as true.
Fine by me. But then that won't stop people speculating on what the situation or the numbers might be. And since we always expect to be told only half the truth at best these days people will make their own judgements about what the reality might be.
It is of course entirely possible that all sources of any "information" turn out to be wrong because the the initial analysis work was flawed or circumstances change unexpectedly quickly.
The problem is that once NDAs and similar constraints are applied and eliminate the currently calculated numbers (or whatever the information is) are left with speculation as the only source of discussion. Maybe later some analysis as more information seeps out to the public domain or more analysts start to build a picture of what is going on.
So what can we conclude?
Either we work towards some sort of understanding of what we will be paying for by trying to work out what is really happening. Or we don't and simply accept what we are told without question.
Paddy is clearly in a difficult position if his employment is dependent on not sharing any information in detail other than what has already reached the public domain.
I can sympathise with that to a large extent. But why that should be a basis for attempting to stop anyone else discussing those matters that may concern them I fail to understand.
Maybe the various parties who are entirely reliant on the public purse to authorise and kick off their projects in the first place and then the captive consumers who have to take their product could afford to be a little more open when discussing their objectives and planning assumptions. Or, perhaps, when presenting their proven successes. That might give everyone more confidence about the ultimate outcome of the political policies being pursued. Rather important given how few people around the world trust their politicians.
Rovinghawk said:
Toltec said:
ETA - better if you type all of the words in the sentence your head.
Irony?
It was deliberate, yes, I noticed the mistake before posting, but didn't correct it as it appealed to my sense of humour anyway. I have to find the world humourous or otherwise madness and despair awaits even if much is pathos.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I stand by those comments.
TB is quoting rubbish and wrong content regarding Peter Plagemann, and I know that from information I have.
TB is pulling up old news we have discussed to infinitum, but is not absorbed in the five man echo chamber.
He was being stupid.
You stalker behaviour rivals the other two. So wrong.
In what way are your comments sensible and useful?TB is quoting rubbish and wrong content regarding Peter Plagemann, and I know that from information I have.
TB is pulling up old news we have discussed to infinitum, but is not absorbed in the five man echo chamber.
He was being stupid.
You stalker behaviour rivals the other two. So wrong.
How can quoting your previous posts be "stalking"? Is quoting previous posts now verboten?
What "other two"? Are you suffering delusions?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ you seem to be widely missing the point.
'Inputs' to this thread plucked from thin air - go from 2000 turbines to 2000 blades the blink of an eye.
There is widespread intentional misinformation.
Other reasons (and the applicable ones) for the data on the costs / volume / extent of the blade erosion are as I have indicated before.
It is highly variable - down to multiple factors including but not limited to :
Manufacturer, location globally, location within the windfarm, the hand built nature of the blades.
And lastly you omitted to consider the information is currently the centre of various legal cases and commercially sensitive. It remains by en large between the manufacturer, the owner and the insurance companies.
Not missing the point Paddy, just expanding it and widening the scope beyond the subject of repairing blades which is your specific focus.'Inputs' to this thread plucked from thin air - go from 2000 turbines to 2000 blades the blink of an eye.
There is widespread intentional misinformation.
Other reasons (and the applicable ones) for the data on the costs / volume / extent of the blade erosion are as I have indicated before.
It is highly variable - down to multiple factors including but not limited to :
Manufacturer, location globally, location within the windfarm, the hand built nature of the blades.
And lastly you omitted to consider the information is currently the centre of various legal cases and commercially sensitive. It remains by en large between the manufacturer, the owner and the insurance companies.
Some numbers, which may or may not be correct, have appeared in the media, both specialist for the industry and the more general public press. It can't be avoided really but one might query the numbers since they can only be verified once the work is completed and final costs apportioned.
The legal aspect is to be expected - what lawyer would feel they were doing their job without making the costs of the project as high as possible? And finding many hours to bill or that justify their salaries? Mush the same as any industry of course but generally with higher hourly rates to negotiate and more opportunities to stretch a project.
And yes, I am well aware of the potential for different effects in different places, different costs that might be incurred and even, of course, the potential for variable quality of product for a number of reasons. If could get very complex indeed and there is big money to be made or saved depending on where you are positioned in the chain.
The thing is though any of the public companies involved are bound to make statements as to their understanding of the costs they are likely to incur against future performance. So at the macro level there should be some information available but it might not be current. We know how you feel about old information so clearly there is no point in trying to discuss anything based on old offerings when you will just tell us tat there is non-public data the is different and so the number are not worth discussing.
That would indeed be true - but sort of stops any discussion in its tracks every time the tactic is deployed.
Some people would prefer to continue the discussion based on what information is in the public domain and then adjust things as new information becomes available. You don't need to dive in and try to shut the discussion down. You don't have to comment at all if you find the particular sub-thread irksome for some reason.Well, unless you are being paid to intervene and I don't suppose you are based on your professed reason for visiting this thread and indeed these PH threads in general.
Why these matters should be so personally involving for you I'm not sure.
Several years ago I abandoned a number of what I now know to be Global Warming promotional sites on the basis of their rude responses to basic questions and innate self serving and supporting air of superiority as they echoed "responses" backwards and forward to each other in a series of mutual ego massages.
If anything convinced me that there was an Emperor with no clothes being hidden behind a barrier of acolytes back then it was the nature of those so called forums.
Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening years. Nothing much in terms of GB Power Generation policy either if one is looking for any sort of balanced solution.
So it's not unreasonable to have speculative discussions.
Has anyone started a "Renewables are the only way forward for Power Generation in Great Britain " thread? It should be a wonderful thread for affirming the benefits of low cost energy for the future of the country and flagging up the successes as they start and continue to deliver what was promised on cost, on budget and reliably for the next 20 to 30 years.
LongQ said:
Not missing the point Paddy, just expanding it and widening the scope beyond the subject of repairing blades which is your specific focus.
Some numbers, which may or may not be correct, have appeared in the media, both specialist for the industry and the more general public press. It can't be avoided really but one might query the numbers since they can only be verified once the work is completed and final costs apportioned.
The legal aspect is to be expected - what lawyer would feel they were doing their job without making the costs of the project as high as possible? And finding many hours to bill or that justify their salaries? Mush the same as any industry of course but generally with higher hourly rates to negotiate and more opportunities to stretch a project.
And yes, I am well aware of the potential for different effects in different places, different costs that might be incurred and even, of course, the potential for variable quality of product for a number of reasons. If could get very complex indeed and there is big money to be made or saved depending on where you are positioned in the chain.
The thing is though any of the public companies involved are bound to make statements as to their understanding of the costs they are likely to incur against future performance. So at the macro level there should be some information available but it might not be current. We know how you feel about old information so clearly there is no point in trying to discuss anything based on old offerings when you will just tell us tat there is non-public data the is different and so the number are not worth discussing.
That would indeed be true - but sort of stops any discussion in its tracks every time the tactic is deployed.
Some people would prefer to continue the discussion based on what information is in the public domain and then adjust things as new information becomes available. You don't need to dive in and try to shut the discussion down. You don't have to comment at all if you find the particular sub-thread irksome for some reason.Well, unless you are being paid to intervene and I don't suppose you are based on your professed reason for visiting this thread and indeed these PH threads in general.
Why these matters should be so personally involving for you I'm not sure.
Several years ago I abandoned a number of what I now know to be Global Warming promotional sites on the basis of their rude responses to basic questions and innate self serving and supporting air of superiority as they echoed "responses" backwards and forward to each other in a series of mutual ego massages.
If anything convinced me that there was an Emperor with no clothes being hidden behind a barrier of acolytes back then it was the nature of those so called forums.
Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening years. Nothing much in terms of GB Power Generation policy either if one is looking for any sort of balanced solution.
So it's not unreasonable to have speculative discussions.
Has anyone started a "Renewables are the only way forward for Power Generation in Great Britain " thread? It should be a wonderful thread for affirming the benefits of low cost energy for the future of the country and flagging up the successes as they start and continue to deliver what was promised on cost, on budget and reliably for the next 20 to 30 years.
Re the statement in bold, the numbers which appeared in the media reports somehow 'accidentally' changed when posted here from number of blades to number of turbines - making the problem appear 3 times as bad as it actually is. Those sort of 'errors' don't help any discussion on here whatsoever, especially when the person making them refuses to accept their 'mistake'. Some numbers, which may or may not be correct, have appeared in the media, both specialist for the industry and the more general public press. It can't be avoided really but one might query the numbers since they can only be verified once the work is completed and final costs apportioned.
The legal aspect is to be expected - what lawyer would feel they were doing their job without making the costs of the project as high as possible? And finding many hours to bill or that justify their salaries? Mush the same as any industry of course but generally with higher hourly rates to negotiate and more opportunities to stretch a project.
And yes, I am well aware of the potential for different effects in different places, different costs that might be incurred and even, of course, the potential for variable quality of product for a number of reasons. If could get very complex indeed and there is big money to be made or saved depending on where you are positioned in the chain.
The thing is though any of the public companies involved are bound to make statements as to their understanding of the costs they are likely to incur against future performance. So at the macro level there should be some information available but it might not be current. We know how you feel about old information so clearly there is no point in trying to discuss anything based on old offerings when you will just tell us tat there is non-public data the is different and so the number are not worth discussing.
That would indeed be true - but sort of stops any discussion in its tracks every time the tactic is deployed.
Some people would prefer to continue the discussion based on what information is in the public domain and then adjust things as new information becomes available. You don't need to dive in and try to shut the discussion down. You don't have to comment at all if you find the particular sub-thread irksome for some reason.Well, unless you are being paid to intervene and I don't suppose you are based on your professed reason for visiting this thread and indeed these PH threads in general.
Why these matters should be so personally involving for you I'm not sure.
Several years ago I abandoned a number of what I now know to be Global Warming promotional sites on the basis of their rude responses to basic questions and innate self serving and supporting air of superiority as they echoed "responses" backwards and forward to each other in a series of mutual ego massages.
If anything convinced me that there was an Emperor with no clothes being hidden behind a barrier of acolytes back then it was the nature of those so called forums.
Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening years. Nothing much in terms of GB Power Generation policy either if one is looking for any sort of balanced solution.
So it's not unreasonable to have speculative discussions.
Has anyone started a "Renewables are the only way forward for Power Generation in Great Britain " thread? It should be a wonderful thread for affirming the benefits of low cost energy for the future of the country and flagging up the successes as they start and continue to deliver what was promised on cost, on budget and reliably for the next 20 to 30 years.
There's no chance of discussion of any sort of balanced power generation policy on here when some refuse to accept that renewables can (and already do) play a part in that.
Personally, I'd prefer new research to focus in two main areas - energy storage and small, standard design, nuclear plants (as suggested by someone else on here) which werer relatively cheap to build, commission and decommission. Much more cost-effective and scalable than the current nuclear plans.
Some interesting suggestions on here about using excess renewable energy to produce ammonia whch can then either be burnt in CCGT power stations or sold commercially.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff