The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Thought this might interest a few on here. I've mentioned that the 1st generation wind turbines are being replaced, and this came up on the BBC site today;
We're also at the start of a big shift in the industry towards "re-powering". That's the jargon for replacement of older wind turbines. They usually have a 25 year lifespan. And while it may be possible to extend that, the attraction of replacement is that new designs are far more efficient and deliver far more power.
Indeed, some turbines are being retired early. SSE Renewables announced this Friday that it has won consent to re-power a wind farm on Kintyre, 10 km from Campbeltown. The existing 22 turbines have been operating since 2003. SSE wants to replace them with 16 turbines, which will be 20 metres higher, rising from 130m to 150m. The capacity rises from 19 megawatts to 80 MW - yes, that's right, 27% fewer turbines and 320% more power.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotl...
Very impressive improvement in 17 years! Also very cheap as most of the cost is the grid connection and ground works. The visible but on top is actually pretty cheap.
We're also at the start of a big shift in the industry towards "re-powering". That's the jargon for replacement of older wind turbines. They usually have a 25 year lifespan. And while it may be possible to extend that, the attraction of replacement is that new designs are far more efficient and deliver far more power.
Indeed, some turbines are being retired early. SSE Renewables announced this Friday that it has won consent to re-power a wind farm on Kintyre, 10 km from Campbeltown. The existing 22 turbines have been operating since 2003. SSE wants to replace them with 16 turbines, which will be 20 metres higher, rising from 130m to 150m. The capacity rises from 19 megawatts to 80 MW - yes, that's right, 27% fewer turbines and 320% more power.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotl...
Very impressive improvement in 17 years! Also very cheap as most of the cost is the grid connection and ground works. The visible but on top is actually pretty cheap.
Condi said:
Indeed, some turbines are being retired early. SSE Renewables announced this Friday that it has won consent to re-power a wind farm on Kintyre, 10 km from Campbeltown. The existing 22 turbines have been operating since 2003. SSE wants to replace them with 16 turbines, which will be 20 metres higher, rising from 130m to 150m. The capacity rises from 19 megawatts to 80 MW - yes, that's right, 27% fewer turbines and 320% more power.
Tangy? Sorry to burst your bubble a little, but the current turbines are a lot smaller than you imply. (AFAICT The 20m increase is over the approved -but never delivered- Tangy 3 scheme)https://www.thewindpower.net/windfarm_en_1464_tang...
Current rotor diameter is 52m, the proposed repowering diameter is 130m.
Because the turbines are so much bigger, they need to be much more widely spaced. So the site (and visual impact) is significantly larger too.
https://sse.com/media/532510/R170_1106_Vol1_NTS_Co...
https://www.ashdesignassessment.com/tangy-extensio...
Basically, it's replacing a small windfarm with a much larger one. There's probably very little in the way of efficiency gains, except that higher turbines typically means higher windspeeds.
My main concern with repowering like this is that the old concrete turbine bases can't be reused or removed. (they're normally scalped to below ground level and then "landscaped"). And it will be rinse and repeat in another 25-30 years...
silentbrown said:
Condi said:
Indeed, some turbines are being retired early. SSE Renewables announced this Friday that it has won consent to re-power a wind farm on Kintyre, 10 km from Campbeltown. The existing 22 turbines have been operating since 2003. SSE wants to replace them with 16 turbines, which will be 20 metres higher, rising from 130m to 150m. The capacity rises from 19 megawatts to 80 MW - yes, that's right, 27% fewer turbines and 320% more power.
Tangy? Sorry to burst your bubble a little, but the current turbines are a lot smaller than you imply. (AFAICT The 20m increase is over the approved -but never delivered- Tangy 3 scheme)https://www.thewindpower.net/windfarm_en_1464_tang...
Current rotor diameter is 52m, the proposed repowering diameter is 130m.
Because the turbines are so much bigger, they need to be much more widely spaced. So the site (and visual impact) is significantly larger too.
https://sse.com/media/532510/R170_1106_Vol1_NTS_Co...
https://www.ashdesignassessment.com/tangy-extensio...
Basically, it's replacing a small windfarm with a much larger one. There's probably very little in the way of efficiency gains, except that higher turbines typically means higher windspeeds.
My main concern with repowering like this is that the old concrete turbine bases can't be reused or removed. (they're normally scalped to below ground level and then "landscaped"). And it will be rinse and repeat in another 25-30 years...
It's likely not a very good use of (carbon emitting) resources either.
Repeat it a few times and things could start to look costly - perhaps to the point where there is no funding available for the third or fourth round of replacements.
Still, after a few development cycles at least most of the wind farm land area will likely be concrete and steel under a few centimeters of surface cover and that might be enough to allow re-use in some way. Hopefully the issue about rainfall and run-off vs soakaway has been well considered. Just like it is for all the building work on flood plains.
As for the potential output - impressive increase in rated numbers for the few years of development elapsed. But what are the predicted actual values for generation?
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 28th December 03:07
LongQ said:
One has top wonder about the economics if the planned life expectancy is not achieved - for whatever reason.
In this case operating since 2003, it's nearly 2020 and these things take a decent amount of time to hit financing/construction/operation milestones. Could easily be >2023 before the repower is complete. For much of the works, there is no reason why the existing turbines couldn't continue operating while foundations etc... Are being poured. The subsidy normally lasts 20 years so I wouldn't typically expect them to rip stuff out before that date. Projects normally financed by banks on a 15-18 year loan term. Owners may continue operating well beyond that or may elect to try and repower - plenty of examples of both.
LongQ said:
One has top wonder about the economics if the planned life expectancy is not achieved - for whatever reason.
It's likely not a very good use of (carbon emitting) resources either.
Repeat it a few times and things could start to look costly - perhaps to the point where there is no funding available for the third or fourth round of replacements.
Still, after a few development cycles at least most of the wind farm land area will likely be concrete and steel under a few centimeters of surface cover and that might be enough to allow re-use in some way. Hopefully the issue about rainfall and run-off vs soakaway has been well considered. Just like it is for all the building work on flood plains.
As for the potential output - impressive increase in rated numbers for the few years of development elapsed. But what are the predicted actual values for generation?
Capacity factor for new sites/turbines seems to be heading up to about 0.4, I think. Reason for the increase is largely due to increased wind at height with bigger turbines, but there's probably scope for gaming it a bit by having turbines with lower nameplate ratings... It's likely not a very good use of (carbon emitting) resources either.
Repeat it a few times and things could start to look costly - perhaps to the point where there is no funding available for the third or fourth round of replacements.
Still, after a few development cycles at least most of the wind farm land area will likely be concrete and steel under a few centimeters of surface cover and that might be enough to allow re-use in some way. Hopefully the issue about rainfall and run-off vs soakaway has been well considered. Just like it is for all the building work on flood plains.
As for the potential output - impressive increase in rated numbers for the few years of development elapsed. But what are the predicted actual values for generation?
irc said:
More to the point what subsidies is it getting.?
There is no support for new onshore wind, and Im pretty sure that the subsidy on the initial project cannot be changed. It might be such that the initial ROC payments continue for the original 18MW capacity until the end of the subsidy period, but as far as new subsidy, non. New onshore wind is already being built without subsidy on new sites, on a site with an existing grid connection and access etc it makes sense on simple economics.
In other news, Hunterston reactor 3 is now to be shutdown more frequently for graphite inspections to maintain and inform the safety case for the other three reactors at Hinkley and Hunterston.
We are going to safely maximise the operational life of the AGRs but they are drawing near to the end.
https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/hunt...
We are going to safely maximise the operational life of the AGRs but they are drawing near to the end.
https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/hunt...
Just also found this
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build...
Apparently we are going to generate Hydrogen at Heysham !
Would be interesting, We shut down our electrolyser down years ago because maintenance was a nightmare, but we want to now 'establish Lancaster as a hydrogen hub'
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build...
Apparently we are going to generate Hydrogen at Heysham !
Would be interesting, We shut down our electrolyser down years ago because maintenance was a nightmare, but we want to now 'establish Lancaster as a hydrogen hub'
silentbrown said:
Current rotor diameter is 52m, the proposed repowering diameter is 130m.
Because the turbines are so much bigger, they need to be much more widely spaced. So the site (and visual impact) is significantly larger too.
https://sse.com/media/532510/R170_1106_Vol1_NTS_Co...
https://www.ashdesignassessment.com/tangy-extensio...
Basically, it's replacing a small windfarm with a much larger one. There's probably very little in the way of efficiency gains, except that higher turbines typically means higher windspeeds.
The increase in the visual footprint by 130% larger WTGs is going to be massive; a totally different ballgame to the existing installation.Because the turbines are so much bigger, they need to be much more widely spaced. So the site (and visual impact) is significantly larger too.
https://sse.com/media/532510/R170_1106_Vol1_NTS_Co...
https://www.ashdesignassessment.com/tangy-extensio...
Basically, it's replacing a small windfarm with a much larger one. There's probably very little in the way of efficiency gains, except that higher turbines typically means higher windspeeds.
ETA The PP talks about tip height of 130m, not diameter.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Sunday 22 December 22:47
hidetheelephants said:
The increase in the visual footprint by 130% larger WTGs is going to be massive; a totally different ballgame to the existing installation.
ETA The PP talks about tip height of 130m, not diameter.
That's an earlier application. Because the new one is over 50MW it goes through a section 36 process. https://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails...ETA The PP talks about tip height of 130m, not diameter.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Sunday 22 December 22:47
Tip height is now 149.9m. Obviously 150 is a magic number that must not be exceeded for some reason!
silentbrown said:
hidetheelephants said:
The increase in the visual footprint by 130% larger WTGs is going to be massive; a totally different ballgame to the existing installation.
ETA The PP talks about tip height of 130m, not diameter.
That's an earlier application. Because the new one is over 50MW it goes through a section 36 process. https://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails...ETA The PP talks about tip height of 130m, not diameter.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Sunday 22 December 22:47
Tip height is now 149.9m. Obviously 150 is a magic number that must not be exceeded for some reason!
Nickgnome said:
Any structure of 150 metres or more must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation Order and should be appropriately marked. However, if an aviation stakeholder (including the MOD) makes a request for lighting/marking of structures, including wind turbines and anemometer masts, of lesser height it is highly likely that the CAA would support such a request, particularly if the request falls under Section 47 of the Aviation Act.
Cheers Nick. I wonder how you'd implement that... Lights on the blade tips would look cool and a bit Christmassy, but I suspect they need to be static? silentbrown said:
Nickgnome said:
Any structure of 150 metres or more must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation Order and should be appropriately marked. However, if an aviation stakeholder (including the MOD) makes a request for lighting/marking of structures, including wind turbines and anemometer masts, of lesser height it is highly likely that the CAA would support such a request, particularly if the request falls under Section 47 of the Aviation Act.
Cheers Nick. I wonder how you'd implement that... Lights on the blade tips would look cool and a bit Christmassy, but I suspect they need to be static? https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/DAP01062017_L...
Condi said:
Nickbrapp said:
Interesting, so are they just aloud to continue to use coal for their production? Surely that’s chucking out more emissions than energy on demand does.
Its coking coal, and is an energy and carbon source for the chemical reaction in the blast furnace which breads down iron oxide into iron and carbon dioxide. You can't just replace it with something else very easily (if at all) and its not that they are burning coal like in a power station, simply to generate electricity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
At least from that paper it looks like it is broadly competitive with existing techniques though a low cost low. Carbon electricity source would be needed.
Suspect that regular steel companies will be slow to adopt as they already have substantial sunk cost, we might see a Tesla of the steel market selling CO2 free steel that could be labeled as such and sold at a premium.
Talksteer said:
Condi said:
Nickbrapp said:
Interesting, so are they just aloud to continue to use coal for their production? Surely that’s chucking out more emissions than energy on demand does.
Its coking coal, and is an energy and carbon source for the chemical reaction in the blast furnace which breads down iron oxide into iron and carbon dioxide. You can't just replace it with something else very easily (if at all) and its not that they are burning coal like in a power station, simply to generate electricity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
At least from that paper it looks like it is broadly competitive with existing techniques though a low cost low. Carbon electricity source would be needed.
Suspect that regular steel companies will be slow to adopt as they already have substantial sunk cost, we might see a Tesla of the steel market selling CO2 free steel that could be labeled as such and sold at a premium.
Anyone want to make a guess at what the 2019 Renewables generation will be?
Breaking 35%? 40%?
Reminder for 2018
Breaking 35%? 40%?
Reminder for 2018
UK Energy Statistics said:
Of electricity generated in 2018, gas accounted for 39.4 per cent whilst coal accounted for
only 5.0 per cent. Renewables share of electricity generation increased to 33.3 per cent in
2018 - a record high - with 111 TWh electricity generated from renewable sources, as a
result of increased capacity. Nuclear generation’s share declined slightly on 2017, due to
reactor outages and required maintenance.
only 5.0 per cent. Renewables share of electricity generation increased to 33.3 per cent in
2018 - a record high - with 111 TWh electricity generated from renewable sources, as a
result of increased capacity. Nuclear generation’s share declined slightly on 2017, due to
reactor outages and required maintenance.
Whilst all this development of renewables is admirable (albeit at cost to the consumer to fund the privately owned infrastructure) can anyone explain to me why we do this as a small nation globally ,pertaining to be doing the "right thing " when Germany uses majorly Polish mined coal for generation,Spain too along with huge banks of diesel generators powering huge cities and all of the Canary Islands 24/7 ,just visited Gibraltar and asked about power generation and water supply ,guess what ? Diesel powered 24/7 and desalination powered by good old diesel,no interconnector with Spain ,gas purchased from Oman and bottled locally .We are being mugged in my view , perhaps controversial or , but why as a nation accounting for so little of global pollution are we seemingly paying the most as a consumer, funding short-lived schemes that will make huge monies for the likes of Eon etc? (who are German owned.) Merkel's regime obviously give little care about pollution,look at the power generation of germany ,just an example . Grenade rolled in room ,I'm off lol .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff