The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[V8 Fettler]

Gary C said:

V8 Fettler said:

Quick enough to prevent a catastrophic drop in frequency. Was this not covered previously in this thread?

Best I can find at short notice is a PDF: https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/med...

Have a read from page 16, starting "> Rotor swings in the generators (Inertia response) <"

Not disagreeing, just pointing out the rotating inertia is small compare to the stored energy in a big boiler and the droop operates well within 1s, not the 10s in that graph. The governor inner loop (Iie, the bit that measures speed against the governor set-point and controls the governor valves) is very fast.

However, iniertia is significant in smoothing out things, and at Chernobyl, they were actually testing the ability of coast down generation To power the backup cooling.

Interestingly, the link you referred to was about the inertia in wind turbines.

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th October 17:58

Edited by Gary C on Friday 5th October 18:02

The "energiforskmedia" link does indeed highlight the grid stability issues created by wind, includes:

ENERGIFORSK said:

In the first few seconds following the loss of a large generating plant, the frequency drops quickly. In the existing power system, the frequency drop is
limited by the inertia response of the on-line synchronous generation.

This limits the frequency drop during the first 7 to 10 seconds after the initial loss of production and allows the primary power frequency control to restore the grid frequency to its nominal value.

During operational states with large amounts of wind power, and hence small amounts of on-line synchronous generation, the frequency would drop so fast that the system stability is endangered

It's a long time since I've calculated kinetic energy stored in a rotating machine, certainly not this century, although I didn't have to use a slide rule. Back of the envelope suggests that a typical 500MW turbo-generator at synchronous speed would probably carry approx 4000 megajoules of kinetic energy.

I doubt if it's possible to determine by visual observation the precise point at which the primary frequency response becomes effective. The operation of the governor is just the start of a sequence of events.

Another graph

[Condi]

turbobloke said:

Are any of you people leading energy experts?

No, are you?

In fact, other than being a laptop researcher, what is your knowledge or involvement in the power industry?

turbobloke said:

If any of you can manage any on-topic responses, no waffle please - the irony would be too great. Credible evidence in peer-reviewed science will do nicely. TIA.

How much peer reviewed science around the effects of atmospheric carbon on global warming would you like?
Or how many papers would you like which research the differences in carbon emissions between the different generation types?

The amount of research into global warming and different generation methods far exceeds the amount of evidence that wind turbines in any way increase local temperatures.

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

It's a long time since I've calculated kinetic energy stored in a rotating machine, certainly not this century, although I didn't have to use a slide rule. Back of the envelope suggests that a typical 500MW turbo-generator at synchronous speed would probably carry approx 4000 megajoules of kinetic energy.

I doubt if it's possible to determine by visual observation the precise point at which the primary frequency response becomes effective. The operation of the governor is just the start of a sequence of events.

Another graph

Droop acts far faster than 1s.

[turbobloke]

Slide rule, well remembered

Your (V8F) earlier point about atmospheric KE remains valid, as per the recent paper involving Prof Keith and the earlier papers from Keith et al and Vautard et al I cited in response several days ago...to much foolish hubris and misplaced chutzpah from the advocates/alarmists whose faith was one again challenged by data i.e. actual evidence.

[Condi]

Condi said:

turbobloke said:

Are any of you people leading energy experts?

No, are you?

In fact, other than being a laptop researcher, what is your knowledge or involvement in the power industry?

turbobloke said:

If any of you can manage any on-topic responses, no waffle please - the irony would be too great. Credible evidence in peer-reviewed science will do nicely. TIA.

How much peer reviewed science around the effects of atmospheric carbon on global warming would you like?
Or how many papers would you like which research the differences in carbon emissions between the different generation types?

The amount of research into global warming and different generation methods far exceeds the amount of evidence that wind turbines in any way increase local temperatures.

turbobloke said:

Slide rule, well remembered

Cough....

Nothing? No answers at all.....

[Condi]

Any comments on the IPCC report released today?

Suggests we need less carbon and more renewable generation to prevent catastrophic climate change, and have only 12 years left to do so.

[PRTVR]

Condi said:

Any comments on the IPCC report released today?

Suggests we need less carbon and more renewable generation to prevent catastrophic climate change, and have only 12 years left to do so.

Well if true we are screwed, good luck in trying to get China to cut back, my friend's in Canada have reported the earliest major snow fall in living memory.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4526256/more-snow-south...
In a warming climate should there be less snow?

[LongQ]

Condi said:

Any comments on the IPCC report released today?

Suggests we need less carbon and more renewable generation to prevent catastrophic climate change, and have only 12 years left to do so.

Of course it does.

http://cop24.gov.pl/en/

It always happens at this time of year.

Tens of thousands of flights have been booked to Poland (or wherever the annual boondoggle has been assigned for the year in question). The masses need to be distracted from that excess.

The headline message seems to have been much the same for years now - a moving target like a carrot hanging from a stick in front of a donkey.

[DocJock]

Condi said:

Any comments on the IPCC report released today?

Suggests we need less carbon and more renewable generation to prevent catastrophic climate change, and have only 12 years left to do so.

Renewable generation I can go with.

Forgive my scepticism re IPCC 'we've only got 12 years to save the world' alarmism. My scepticism is based on their (and others') previous predictions of calamity which turned out to be nonsense.

[StanleyT]

PRTVR said:

Condi said:

Any comments on the IPCC report released today?

Suggests we need less carbon and more renewable generation to prevent catastrophic climate change, and have only 12 years left to do so.

Well if true we are screwed, good luck in trying to get China to cut back, my friend's in Canada have reported the earliest major snow fall in living memory.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4526256/more-snow-south...
In a warming climate should there be less snow?

According to Stanley Tonks family 50 year(ish) almanac, after freezing ground frost on Saturday night, the world is 13 days earlier cold by night, so please, bring on global warming, my Dahlias got a nasty nip and my gardenias are getting brown stains suggesting Saturday night was not alright for them.

Almanac suggests on past trends, November will be mild and wet then December thro' Feb are going to be lingeringly cold alike 2010/11, then turning dry and mild in spring.

[Toltec]

DocJock said:

Renewable generation I can go with.

Forgive my scepticism re IPCC 'we've only got 12 years to save the world' alarmism. My scepticism is based on their (and others') previous predictions of calamity which turned out to be nonsense.

At least they have put their cards on the table with a fixed date, I suspect they will wriggle in twelve years time, but we can start the countdown and book the parties now.

[dickymint]

Toltec said:

DocJock said:

Renewable generation I can go with.

Forgive my scepticism re IPCC 'we've only got 12 years to save the world' alarmism. My scepticism is based on their (and others') previous predictions of calamity which turned out to be nonsense.

At least they have put their cards on the table with a fixed date, I suspect they will wriggle in twelve years time, but we can start the countdown and book the parties now.

Many others have put their “cards on the table” and ended up looking foolish.......

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate...

And for you nitpicking alarmists I don’t give a st of the source of that article as it’s a fact that every doomsday prediction so far has been wrong. Even Prince Charles’s

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

Toltec said:

DocJock said:

Renewable generation I can go with.

Forgive my scepticism re IPCC 'we've only got 12 years to save the world' alarmism. My scepticism is based on their (and others') previous predictions of calamity which turned out to be nonsense.

At least they have put their cards on the table with a fixed date, I suspect they will wriggle in twelve years time, but we can start the countdown and book the parties now.

Many others have put their “cards on the table” and ended up looking foolish.......

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate...

And for you nitpicking alarmists I don’t give a st of the source of that article as it’s a fact that every doomsday prediction so far has been wrong. Even Prince Charles’s

Wait a mo - after all New York City was submerged in 2015, arctic summer sea ice did disappear in 2009 (and various other years since when it was also meant to disappear again, which would be odd for something that disappeared already), El Ninos have lasted 18 years not 18 months, snow in the UK has become a rare event since the turn of the century such that children don't know what it is, and so on.

Actually don't wait a mo, you're quite right, the entire agw edifice and all its greenblob fallout is a crock of something that's not so much green as brown...and it sounds rather like a bell.

[robinessex]

Australia defies climate warning to back coal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-457...

The Australian government has backed coal-fired power, despite the recommendations of a major report on climate change.
Phasing out coal is considered crucial to limiting global warming to within 1.5C, as set out in the UN report released yesterday.
Australia's deputy prime minister has said the country should "absolutely" continue to use and exploit its coal.
But China remains the world's biggest coal consumer.
In addition, China has restarted work at hundreds of coal-fired power stations, according to an analysis of satellite imagery.
The Guardian reports that Michael McCormack, Australia's Deputy PM, said his government would not change policy "just because somebody might suggest that some sort of report is the way we need to follow and everything that we should do".
He added that coal provided 60% of Australia's electricity, 50,000 jobs and was the country's biggest export............continues

[StanleyT]

Nuclear power generation wise it seems we are about to leave Euratom.

So in future it will either be Ouratom or Theiratom.

Some atoms may be classified as Asyllatoms and they will be rounded up and sent to Selloffafield for reprocessing / storage / a telling off / escape below monitoring levels.

After that there will be a Selloffanatom to the highest bidder, and thus will end our glorious history of nuclear power generation?

So, in that mind Gary C, can you settle an old argument at work. are orange, yellow or blue turbine trains more efficient. I prefer blue from the Google photos, but have only worked on physical 660 Gensets that were yellow and orange as the blue ones never seemed to fall over, at either nucs or coal stations. Yellow hid the dust better I felt generally so is my favourite colour.

[hidetheelephants]

Most of the big lumps of ironmongery at Hunterston are/were painted a sickly pale green colour; where does that figure on the rainbow reliability scale?

[turbobloke]

Check out a GWPF press release "BBC Finds Lord Deben Guilty Of Misleading The Public On Wind Farms"

It relates to gov't policy regarding new onshore farms, rather than the cost / intermittency / bat and bird slaughter / infrasound's adverse health effects / eyesore impact on visual amenity / economic downside including local house prices / general pointlessness

The reasoning is deeply ironic with regard to the hapless beeb's policy on institutionalising pro-agw bias.

[dickymint]

Fracking has been been given the go ahead in Lancs

https://news.sky.com/story/fracking-can-go-ahead-i...

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

Check out a GWPF press release "BBC Finds Lord Deben Guilty Of Misleading The Public On Wind Farms"

It relates to gov't policy regarding new onshore farms, rather than the cost / intermittency / bat and bird slaughter / infrasound's adverse health effects / eyesore impact on visual amenity / economic downside including local house prices / general pointlessness

The reasoning is deeply ironic with regard to the hapless beeb's policy on institutionalising pro-agw bias.

The BBC Executive Complains Unit response - https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/BB... .

Agrees with the complaint from the GWPF that Deben should have been challenged on his incorrect statement that the government had blocked further onshore wind development when they'd actually devolved decision making on that.
Rejected the GWPF complaint about the claim that onshore wind was the cheapest way to generate electricity though

[GroundEffect]

dickymint said:

Fracking has been been given the go ahead in Lancs

https://news.sky.com/story/fracking-can-go-ahead-i...

Why is that a good thing?