The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
dickymint said:
How much is "the future of Power Generation in GB" driven by the EU?
It's probably more affected by power generation plans in Europe, not the EU, given that one of the parts of it is an interconnect to Norway and most of the gas we burn comes from Norway too.A lot of the coal we burn comes from non EU sources too - mainly Russia and Colombia.
turbobloke said:
Talksteer said:
The short answer as to what you do to run a renewables heavy grid:
1: Have lots of renewables, in the renewables heavy option there was ~270GW of capacity by 2050 this ups your chance of having some of it deliver
2: Have some nuclear 7.8-18 GWe
3: Have interconnects 17-20 GWe
4: Add around 17-30GWe storage, pumped, V2G and utility batteries
1: Have lots of renewables, in the renewables heavy option there was ~270GW of capacity by 2050 this ups your chance of having some of it deliver
2: Have some nuclear 7.8-18 GWe
3: Have interconnects 17-20 GWe
4: Add around 17-30GWe storage, pumped, V2G and utility batteries
5. Have large banks of expensive and polluting diesel generators ready for when it goes titsup.
UK plc has spent hundreds of millions of ££££££££££ on subsidies to polluting diesel generators to help solve the energy supply crunch facing the country for at least the next decade or two.. This involves at least 1.5 gigawatts of diesel power as back-up energy for the grid.
Short term operating reserves cost was £75.9 million in 2016 consisting of £53 million payment for capacity, the charges for electricity were £22 million. Hardly massive!
Total CO2 released was, 142,000t, of which diesels were far from the most polluting source, running a CCGT or worse a coal plant as a spinning reserve was much worse.
To put this in context in 2017 electricity generation produced 72.4 million tonnes of CO2.
So the salient points from the last few pages are:
1 - Smart meters are not capable of browning\blacking out the supply to an individual house
2 - It is accepted that it isn't possible to power the whole of the UK grid just on renewables
3 - Fossil fuels are a diminishing resource so research into alternative forms of energy is going to continue
1 - Smart meters are not capable of browning\blacking out the supply to an individual house
2 - It is accepted that it isn't possible to power the whole of the UK grid just on renewables
3 - Fossil fuels are a diminishing resource so research into alternative forms of energy is going to continue
wc98 said:
The3rdDukeofB said:
Do you actually think it is either clever, true or funny posting that ‘drive a V8’ crap?
It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
yep, it's funny and true, going by the greening of the planet from the increase in atmospheric co2 from around 280ppm to just over 400ppm. do you have a problem with that ?It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
wc indeed has it.
There are beneficial effects from more CO2. It is worthwhile pointing this out. Often.
For balance
jet_noise said:
wc98 said:
The3rdDukeofB said:
Do you actually think it is either clever, true or funny posting that ‘drive a V8’ crap?
It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
yep, it's funny and true, going by the greening of the planet from the increase in atmospheric co2 from around 280ppm to just over 400ppm. do you have a problem with that ?It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
wc indeed has it.
There are beneficial effects from more CO2. It is worthwhile pointing this out. Often.
For balance
BigMon said:
So the salient points from the last few pages are:
1 - Smart meters are not capable of browning\blacking out the supply to an individual house
2 - It is accepted that it isn't possible to power the whole of the UK grid just on renewables
3 - Fossil fuels are a diminishing resource so research into alternative forms of energy is going to continue
Good summary BM.1 - Smart meters are not capable of browning\blacking out the supply to an individual house
2 - It is accepted that it isn't possible to power the whole of the UK grid just on renewables
3 - Fossil fuels are a diminishing resource so research into alternative forms of energy is going to continue
However, might I query:
Aren't smart meters capable of disconnection but legislation (or rules or guidelines) currently forbids this feature from being operated?
Are fossil fuels diminishing at a rate which means the current rate (and cost) of alternative energy implementation and research is appropriate today?
And observe:
While it is accepted here that renewables can't do it (to varying degrees
) all parliament would disagree. By 2050.Condi said:
jet_noise said:
Indeed I don't know. By making such a statement I hoped to stimulate discussion and to know more. So shoot me
Ok, well it was the way you asserted it as fact. jet_noise said:
Why do you think energy density does not matter for power production?
While we transport electricity I dont think it does matter. Power generation is from large, fixed, structures which are scaleable in either output or number, and so if the energy density of the 'fuel' is low you can simply builder larger or more units. For transport where the 'fuel' has to be carried around then obviously energy density is of much more importance. jet_noise said:
My mind (as is yours I think) on whether fossil fuels' energy density and dispatch-ability are better than renewables is indeed made up on present information. There therefore has to be a very good reason to move away. Show me those reasons and I'll change my mind as to whether overall, on balance of advantages and disadvantages, costs and benefits it is beneficial to go renewable.
The particular detail here is environmental damage. If the two methods did have the same amount then how do you argue that it is a reason to change?
The scientists and governments (domestic and international) have decided that carbon emissions are damaging the plant. I am no scientist and are not in a position to argue with that. Carbon emissions now have a cost which has to be taken into account when burning fossil fuels. From a simple economic perspective (ignoring subsidies), there are forms of renewable generation which are cost competitive with existing fuel sources, even without any support. The particular detail here is environmental damage. If the two methods did have the same amount then how do you argue that it is a reason to change?
If existing fuel sources had no negative external impacts then we wouldn't change. However, existing fuel sources do have considerable negative effects, and as we learn more and advance as a society it is our duty to recognise that there are better alternatives. The country will never run off 100% carbon free baseload power (at least, unlikely in our lifetimes), but we can use cleaner sources of energy when and where they exist to reduce the negative externalises from carbon based fuel sources.
Now, you can disagree with the science if you like, and there are places on here to do so, but this thread is about power generation, and the businesses involved in the system, from National Grid down to the man at home consuming power, will only do what makes financial sense, and work within the rules set down by the government.
What I'm trying to do more often than not on here is simply provide some perspective and insight from my own experience. A lot of the claims from various people on here make massive assumptions or are simply incorrect, and they say things without any knowledge of how things work in practice, day to day. Other people with relevant experience have simply given up, at a great loss to the general discussion.
jet_noise said:
I agree hydro is good and should be classed as renewable although when it goes wrong it can go very wrong - think dam breaching.
However suitable locations are limited so it can never become significant (globally although some countries are lucky to have geography which is amenable).
Further have I got it right that hydro is for some reason usually excluded from the renewable category?
Pumped storage is not necessarily renewable, true hydro is all renewable. However suitable locations are limited so it can never become significant (globally although some countries are lucky to have geography which is amenable).
Further have I got it right that hydro is for some reason usually excluded from the renewable category?
On the energy density question my observation is that that of renewables is so low (compared to fossil fuels or nuclear) that the amount of land needed to power more than a tiny fraction of need is so large as to be impractical.
I disagree with the statement that carbon (in the form of CO2) emissions are damaging the planet (not plant as you put it, Freudian slip there I think!
).But you knew that.
Hence I have to look for other reasons for change.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
wc98 said:
The3rdDukeofB said:
Do you actually think it is either clever, true or funny posting that ‘drive a V8’ crap?
It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
yep, it's funny and true, going by the greening of the planet from the increase in atmospheric co2 from around 280ppm to just over 400ppm. do you have a problem with that ?It’s all a bit ‘annoying Colin’ isn’t it ?
Immature.
jet_noise said:
BigMon said:
So the salient points from the last few pages are:
1 - Smart meters are not capable of browning\blacking out the supply to an individual house
2 - It is accepted that it isn't possible to power the whole of the UK grid just on renewables
3 - Fossil fuels are a diminishing resource so research into alternative forms of energy is going to continue
Good summary BM.1 - Smart meters are not capable of browning\blacking out the supply to an individual house
2 - It is accepted that it isn't possible to power the whole of the UK grid just on renewables
3 - Fossil fuels are a diminishing resource so research into alternative forms of energy is going to continue
However, might I query:
Aren't smart meters capable of disconnection but legislation (or rules or guidelines) currently forbids this feature from being operated?
Are fossil fuels diminishing at a rate which means the current rate (and cost) of alternative energy implementation and research is appropriate today?
And observe:
While it is accepted here that renewables can't do it (to varying degrees
) all parliament would disagree. By 2050.rscott said:
Although that's not what they said. The commitment is to net zero carbon energy production by 2050, not for it to be 100% renewable.
Colour me sceptical If CO2 from energy production is on one side of a balance sheet what is on the other?
What proportion of renewable energy production would be necessary?
Edit: Forgot the word renewable.
Wayoftheflower said:
As ever, It's complicated, a pity some people love to discuss complex problems in soundbites.
Check the studies linked - they are absolute rubbish - they have limited nitogen supply in the soil and then measured the nitrogen "concentration" as (obviously) lower in CO2 enriched plants (they were physically larger) . Basic error to attempt to show that CO2 enrichment is a problem (when it is in fact a boon - reduced H2O requirements as well, what is not to like). Any farmer would be able to explain you need fertiliser......
Jinx said:
Wayoftheflower said:
As ever, It's complicated, a pity some people love to discuss complex problems in soundbites.
Check the studies linked - they are absolute rubbish - they have limited nitogen supply in the soil and then measured the nitrogen "concentration" as (obviously) lower in CO2 enriched plants (they were physically larger) . Basic error to attempt to show that CO2 enrichment is a problem (when it is in fact a boon - reduced H2O requirements as well, what is not to like). Any farmer would be able to explain you need fertiliser......
Wayoftheflower said:
Be nice if you'd link to the specific study you're referencing. But still, in order to increase the carbon capture potential of plants we need to supply extra fertiliser, shock result. Still completely expunges the meme of "Drive a V8 and feed a tree" doesn't it? Also you haven't acknowledged that increased temperatures will negatively effect plant growth.
Read the entire article - it acknowledges that it was "subsequent" CO2 improved growth was reduced (not eliminated just reduced) as nitrogen became the limiting factor. Now remind me what element makes up most of the Earth's atmosphere? (btw there are plants that can fix this element back into the soil) . And your "increased temperatures will negatively effect plant growth" is nonsense. Low temperatures kill more plants than high - and high temperatures with plenty of H2O and CO2 are not a problem for plants (tropics v artic) .
Again though there is a constant and unproven message being put out that AGW is a bad thing for the planet. Most studies have shown that up to 2 degrees is of net benefit and even beyond - the negative effects are unproven or just misunderstood (this is "net" negative - showing where one little area might suffer and extrapolating is not science) .
Think for a minute, what would the weather look like if the UK meets the 2050 CO2 target against the weather where we don't bother? Now think for a moment - would it be better spending money in the futile attempt to change the weather or spend the money making sure we have umbrellas for when it rains?
Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 16th July 13:35
jet_noise said:
rscott said:
Although that's not what they said. The commitment is to net zero carbon energy production by 2050, not for it to be 100% renewable.
Colour me sceptical If CO2 from energy production is on one side of a balance sheet what is on the other?
What proportion of renewable energy production would be necessary?
Edit: Forgot the word renewable.
rscott said:
Trials of technology like this - https://www.drax.com/press_release/world-first-co2... - hint at some of the options on the other side of the balance sheet.
Thanks rs.At present CCS schemes appear to be, at best, small scale curiosities and at worst efficiency hobbling unicorns.
For anyone interest, and especially for those who would like to believe coal is nice and reliable, the recent coal dispatches have been pretty poor...
Ratcliffe have been running nights over the weekend.
Friday night they tripped at 5am and didnt return.
Saturday ran as expected
Sunday the unit failed before it even generated anything
Monday tripped at 1am and returned at 5am.
Out of the last 3 times Fiddlers ran they tripped once, failed once (never came on at all) and ran as expected once.
So across 2 different stations, owned by different companies, the average reliability has been almost exactly 50%.
At this rate RWE are not going to persist with Ratcliffe, and SSE have already called time on Fiddlers. If there was no coal on the ground all the coal sets would have already shut, they are only holding out for higher power prices to try and recover some value against what has already been bought.
Ratcliffe have been running nights over the weekend.
Friday night they tripped at 5am and didnt return.
Saturday ran as expected
Sunday the unit failed before it even generated anything
Monday tripped at 1am and returned at 5am.
Out of the last 3 times Fiddlers ran they tripped once, failed once (never came on at all) and ran as expected once.
So across 2 different stations, owned by different companies, the average reliability has been almost exactly 50%.
At this rate RWE are not going to persist with Ratcliffe, and SSE have already called time on Fiddlers. If there was no coal on the ground all the coal sets would have already shut, they are only holding out for higher power prices to try and recover some value against what has already been bought.
Its a bit of a chicken and egg situation. There is no money in coal, so they units make a loss and so maintenance is cut to a minimum, and so when they're asked to run their reliability is poor and so they make a loss.
Also the fact that all of them are over 50 years old. There are 25 year old gas plants which are unprofitable, let alone 50 year old coal which is in merit for 1 week of the year.
Also the fact that all of them are over 50 years old. There are 25 year old gas plants which are unprofitable, let alone 50 year old coal which is in merit for 1 week of the year.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff