The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
LongQ said:
The3rdDukeofB said:
The Google project RE<C was based on technology available then.
Not current.
Stop reposting this crap.
What are the differences?Not current.
Stop reposting this crap.
How do they scale?
With the thread's future focus, how about the present...in the past month to 6 weeks there have been several brief power cuts in my location, not exactly in the sticks more in the twigs, and I contacted our local distributor to ask what was happening. There were four or five outtages between 0930 and 1030 this morning, with earlier events including the early hours of 22 August iirc. On these occasions there were no high winds or storms.
The person I spoke with acknowledged what had happened and had a log of events from which they rattled off more dates and times but I didn't have pen/paper handy. They used the terms 'system fault' and 'network fault' in explaining the cuts as due to high voltage spikes requiring a widespread reset. That reminded me of an article from The Engineer which I've had on file for some time. Here's a snip from the section on voltage spikes.
The Engineer said:
Another, more recent factor that has made the problem worse: liberalisation – and privatisation – of the power supply network itself. This has seen a handful of big power stations replaced by a larger number of more localised plants, with more cabling adding to the resistance of the network, and more power plants switching in and out and adding to changes in that resistance. This tends to make the effects of ‘pollution’ in the network even worse.
They refer to spike 'pollution' in the context of dirty supply. More plants switching in and out, more cabling, making spike pollution and dirty-ness worse aka a bigger problem, adding to instability, reducing the integrity of supply.
Anyone else noticed an increase in these short power cuts when weather is normal? It's new around here. No equivalent happened in this location five to fifteen years ago.
turbobloke said:
LongQ said:
The3rdDukeofB said:
The Google project RE<C was based on technology available then.
Not current.
Stop reposting this crap.
What are the differences?Not current.
Stop reposting this crap.
How do they scale?
With the thread's future focus, how about the present...in the past month to 6 weeks there have been several brief power cuts in my location, not exactly in the sticks more in the twigs, and I contacted our local distributor to ask what was happening. There were four or five outtages between 0930 and 1030 this morning, with earlier events including the early hours of 22 August iirc. On these occasions there were no high winds or storms.
The person I spoke with acknowledged what had happened and had a log of events from which they rattled off more dates and times but I didn't have pen/paper handy. They used the terms 'system fault' and 'network fault' in explaining the cuts as due to high voltage spikes requiring a widespread reset. That reminded me of an article from The Engineer which I've had on file for some time. Here's a snip from the section on voltage spikes.
The Engineer said:
Another, more recent factor that has made the problem worse: liberalisation – and privatisation – of the power supply network itself. This has seen a handful of big power stations replaced by a larger number of more localised plants, with more cabling adding to the resistance of the network, and more power plants switching in and out and adding to changes in that resistance. This tends to make the effects of ‘pollution’ in the network even worse.
They refer to spike 'pollution' in the context of dirty supply. More plants switching in and out, more cabling, making spike pollution and dirty-ness worse aka a bigger problem, adding to instability, reducing the integrity of supply.
Anyone else noticed an increase in these short power cuts when weather is normal? It's new around here. No equivalent happened in this location five to fifteen years ago.
it highlights the flaws in the report - like the lack of any figures or published research to back up the claims about competing with coal economically. Nor does it reference solar+storage systems , for example.
Evanivitch said:
Because at present there is no known solution that fully addresses the intermittent power supplies from renewables, and they're only attempt to address that in the report was with vast over-capacity.
I know that. You know that. Everyone in this thread knows that. So why do you keep reposting the same rubbish with no added value? Because you're a realist.
ftfy.I know that. You know that. Everyone in this thread knows that. So why do you keep reposting the same rubbish with no added value? Because you're a realist.
rscott said:
I see you're referring to RE<C again.. Funny how you never responded to this https://energypost.eu/google-gave-renewables-hint-... which I've posted before on this thread.
I have, but as it's a largely science-free and technology-free hit job of a personal attack on two individuals I can see why you find it appealing.wc98 said:
Evanivitch said:
Because at present there is no known solution that fully addresses the intermittent power supplies from renewables, and they're only attempt to address that in the report was with vast over-capacity.
I know that. You know that. Everyone in this thread knows that. So why do you keep reposting the same rubbish with no added value? Because you're a realist.
ftfy.I know that. You know that. Everyone in this thread knows that. So why do you keep reposting the same rubbish with no added value? Because you're a realist.
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
I see you're referring to RE<C again.. Funny how you never responded to this https://energypost.eu/google-gave-renewables-hint-... which I've posted before on this thread.
I didn't, because I can't argue against it. Instead I'll try to turbowaffle up some reason why it's flawed or incorrect, or not peer-reviewed or some other bu11s
t and hope people get bored.(Wonderful thing, editing other people's posts.....)
turbobloke said:
LongQ said:
The3rdDukeofB said:
The Google project RE<C was based on technology available then.
Not current.
Stop reposting this crap.
What are the differences?Not current.
Stop reposting this crap.
How do they scale?
With the thread's future focus, how about the present...in the past month to 6 weeks there have been several brief power cuts in my location, not exactly in the sticks more in the twigs, and I contacted our local distributor to ask what was happening. There were four or five outtages between 0930 and 1030 this morning, with earlier events including the early hours of 22 August iirc. On these occasions there were no high winds or storms.
The person I spoke with acknowledged what had happened and had a log of events from which they rattled off more dates and times but I didn't have pen/paper handy. They used the terms 'system fault' and 'network fault' in explaining the cuts as due to high voltage spikes requiring a widespread reset. That reminded me of an article from The Engineer which I've had on file for some time. Here's a snip from the section on voltage spikes.
The Engineer said:
Another, more recent factor that has made the problem worse: liberalisation – and privatisation – of the power supply network itself. This has seen a handful of big power stations replaced by a larger number of more localised plants, with more cabling adding to the resistance of the network, and more power plants switching in and out and adding to changes in that resistance. This tends to make the effects of ‘pollution’ in the network even worse.
They refer to spike 'pollution' in the context of dirty supply. More plants switching in and out, more cabling, making spike pollution and dirty-ness worse aka a bigger problem, adding to instability, reducing the integrity of supply.
Anyone else noticed an increase in these short power cuts when weather is normal? It's new around here. No equivalent happened in this location five to fifteen years ago.
You can get a map of the transmission system on BM reports - there are little or no new HV lines than there used to be 15 years ago.
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
I see you're referring to RE<C again.. Funny how you never responded to this https://energypost.eu/google-gave-renewables-hint-... which I've posted before on this thread.
I didn't, because I can't argue against it. Instead I'll try to turbowaffle up some reason why it's flawed or incorrect, or not peer-reviewed or some other bu11st and hope people get bored.(Wonderful thing, editing other people's posts.....)
There was no waffle at all unlike your ironic post above.
The hitjob article beloved of rscott gives the impression that the two individuals being attacked worked alone. It also gives the impression that the hitjob author hasn't read the report when they deadpan 'so what about solar PV-with-storage?' well 'did you actually read the report or an interview/.article about it in a greenie blog?'. The sad thing is that based on content 'who knows'.
Overall what can be said in reply is "re-read the report". Clearly there is a group of renewables faithful who dislike being presented with heresy against green doctrine and will apply the might
of a shoot-the-messenger fallacy against it at every opportunity. Which is great, as it reveals the total lack of anything substantive. Keep up the good work!turbojoke said:
wc98 said:
Evanivitch said:
Because at present there is no known solution that fully addresses the intermittent power supplies from renewables, and they're only attempt to address that in the report was with vast over-capacity.
I know that. You know that. Everyone in this thread knows that. So why do you keep reposting the same rubbish with no added value? Because you're a realist.
ftfy.I know that. You know that. Everyone in this thread knows that. So why do you keep reposting the same rubbish with no added value? Because you're a realist.
Condi said:
You can get a map of the transmission system on BM reports - there are little or no new HV lines than there used to be 15 years ago.
? I thought there *were* a fair number of new lines, e.g. Beauly to Denny (along with all the angst about pylons in the Cairngorms) and a new undersea line down the west coast somewhere.Happy to accept that I'm wrong, obviously!
alangla said:
Condi said:
You can get a map of the transmission system on BM reports - there are little or no new HV lines than there used to be 15 years ago.
? I thought there *were* a fair number of new lines, e.g. Beauly to Denny (along with all the angst about pylons in the Cairngorms) and a new undersea line down the west coast somewhere.Happy to accept that I'm wrong, obviously!
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
I see you're referring to RE<C again.. Funny how you never responded to this https://energypost.eu/google-gave-renewables-hint-... which I've posted before on this thread.
I didn't, because I can't argue against it. Instead I'll try to turbowaffle up some reason why it's flawed or incorrect, or not peer-reviewed or some other bu11st and hope people get bored.(Wonderful thing, editing other people's posts.....)
There was no waffle at all unlike your ironic post above.
The hitjob article beloved of rscott gives the impression that the two individuals being attacked worked alone. It also gives the impression that the hitjob author hasn't read the report when they deadpan 'so what about solar PV-with-storage?' well 'did you actually read the report or an interview/.article about it in a greenie blog?'. The sad thing is that based on content 'who knows'.
Overall what can be said in reply is "re-read the report". Clearly there is a group of renewables faithful who dislike being presented with heresy against green doctrine and will apply the might
of a shoot-the-messenger fallacy against it at every opportunity. Which is great, as it reveals the total lack of anything substantive. Keep up the good work!Interesting to see that Google are pushing hard to ensure they continue to purchase energy from renewable sources and are even working on schemes to help others do so . https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-eu...
What led to the Joe Romm hitjob being sidelined...decisions decisions and all that, choosing which loaded pro-renewables fallacy-ridden ad homfest content is 'best' can't be easy.
Meanwhile moving back to evidence-based reasoning we must not forget that back in April the National Grid published research warning that using more renewable power sources posed an increasing threat to network stability.
A report based on multi-£million research had National Grid admitting that renewables increase the unpredictability and volatility of the power supply which could lead to faults on the electricity network. So far, no Joe Romm or Karel Beckman hitjobs.
Apparently the NG is developing a frequency 'monitoring and control system' to deal with issues arising from the threats posed by ever more renewables...reports claim it should be operational by 2025 and that's assuming it's fit for both purposes (monitoring & control). Meanwhile, all is well.
Meanwhile moving back to evidence-based reasoning we must not forget that back in April the National Grid published research warning that using more renewable power sources posed an increasing threat to network stability.
A report based on multi-£million research had National Grid admitting that renewables increase the unpredictability and volatility of the power supply which could lead to faults on the electricity network. So far, no Joe Romm or Karel Beckman hitjobs.
Apparently the NG is developing a frequency 'monitoring and control system' to deal with issues arising from the threats posed by ever more renewables...reports claim it should be operational by 2025
and that's assuming it's fit for both purposes (monitoring & control). Meanwhile, all is well.In relation to the thread title (and apologies if repost)
Solar and wind now the cheapest power source says BloombergNEF
Solar and wind now the cheapest power source says BloombergNEF
Countdown said:
In relation to the thread title (and apologies if repost)
Solar and wind now the cheapest power source says BloombergNEF
So we can look forward to new wind farms built without any subsidy and without any requirement to buy their electricity whether needed or not? I'll believe it when I see it.Solar and wind now the cheapest power source says BloombergNEF
irc said:
So we can look forward to new wind farms built without any subsidy and without any requirement to buy their electricity whether needed or not? I'll believe it when I see it.
There are, and solar farms. I'm working on a solar + storage plant in the North of England that is being built right now and is subsidy free. Look at the likes of Spain where huge solar projects are being built without feed in tariffs or similar
irc said:
So we can look forward to new wind farms built without any subsidy and without any requirement to buy their electricity whether needed or not? I'll believe it when I see it.
It is already happening. The 1st generation wind turbines at the end of their 25 year life are being replaced without any subsidy or PPA. Ironically, the one thing which is stopping people building un-subsidised wind, is more wind! The offshore CFD prices are not much above wholesale baseload cost, but those baseload costs are under pressure from the amount of generation which has £0 cost of generation. Whereas traditionally wholesale prices would not have gone below the cost of running a coal unit (otherwise they would all turn off!) wholesale prices these days can trade to £0 or less because the wind and solar still gets its ROCs and CFD payments, meaning their cost of generation for ROC units is about -£50, and a nuclear set will run at whatever price for a short to medium period of time.
All someone wanting to build a wind turbine actually wants is a buyer for 20 years at todays prices!
Edited by Condi on Wednesday 28th August 18:57
irc said:
Countdown said:
In relation to the thread title (and apologies if repost)
Solar and wind now the cheapest power source says BloombergNEF
So we can look forward to new wind farms built without any subsidy and without any requirement to buy their electricity whether needed or not? I'll believe it when I see it.Solar and wind now the cheapest power source says BloombergNEF
Condi said:
irc said:
So we can look forward to new wind farms built without any subsidy and without any requirement to buy their electricity whether needed or not? I'll believe it when I see it.
It is already happening. The 1st generation wind turbines at the end of their 25 year life are being replaced without any subsidy or PPA. Ironically, the one thing which is stopping people building un-subsidised wind, is more wind! The offshore CFD prices are not much above wholesale baseload cost, but those baseload costs are under pressure from the amount of generation which has £0 cost of generation. Whereas traditionally wholesale prices would not have gone below the cost of running a coal unit (otherwise they would all turn off!) wholesale prices these days can trade to £0 or less because the wind and solar still gets its ROCs and CFD payments, meaning their cost of generation for ROC units is about -£50, and a nuclear set will run at whatever price for a short to medium period of time.
All someone wanting to build a wind turbine actually wants is a buyer for 20 years at todays prices!
Edited by Condi on Wednesday 28th August 18:57
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff