The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[wc98]

mondeoman said:

Oh, I know there will be some huge fanfare about how it's been installed, all shiny and new, and some clever demo about how it can cover for the wind farm shutting down on demo day, then it will be quietly forgotten and left to degrade in the SA sun.

they will be in good company with the desalination plants .another waste of a few billion of tax payer hard earned. if i ever end up struggling i think a move to south australia as a bridge salesman might be in order.

[Lotus 50]

PRTVR said:

And yet again you miss the point, wind turbines are supposed to be green and clean, the saviour of the planet, but what is happening is out of sight and so out of mind, but the pollution is still happening, yet again it appears as if as with the birds it doesn't matter because it's for the greater good.

You seem to be assuming that there are no bird casualties resulting from nuclear or fossil fuel power generation - one of the refs I posted earlier shows that of the 3 forms of energy supply, wind turbines are the least damaging. The pollution is a result of lax environmental standards/management in the countries concerned rather than the fault of turbine production - and how much of the material produced is used in turbines vs computers, tablets, mobile phones etc etc etc?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 6th September 08:21

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

PRTVR said:

And yet again you miss the point, wind turbines are supposed to be green and clean, the saviour of the planet, but what is happening is out of sight and so out of mind, but the pollution is still happening, yet again it appears as if as with the birds it doesn't matter because it's for the greater good.

You seem to be assuming that there are no bird casualties resulting from nuclear or fossil fuel power generation - one of the refs I posted earlier shows that of the 3 forms of energy supply, wind turbines are the least damaging.

Bats?

[Jinx]

Lotus 50 said:

You seem to be assuming that there are no bird casualties resulting from nuclear or fossil fuel power generation - one of the refs I posted earlier shows that of the 3 forms ofenergy supply, wind turbines are the least damaging. The pollution is a result of lax environmental standards/management in the countries concerned rather than the fault of turbine production - and how much of the material produced is used in turbines vs computers, tablets, mobile phones etc etc etc?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 6th September 08:21

But they don't supply energy - not in any useful fashion as the other forms of real energy supply are still needed. These are additional deaths that are being ignored.

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

wc98 said:

mondeoman said:

Oh, I know there will be some huge fanfare about how it's been installed, all shiny and new, and some clever demo about how it can cover for the wind farm shutting down on demo day, then it will be quietly forgotten and left to degrade in the SA sun.

they will be in good company with the desalination plants .another waste of a few billion of tax payer hard earned. if i ever end up struggling i think a move to south australia as a bridge salesman might be in order.

By saying "waste of a few billion of tax payer hard earned" are you assuming it will fail ?

Is that because of greater in sight in to Battery tech and the load balancing requirements than the billion dollar companies of Neoen and Tesla ?
Or because of a hunch ?

No hunch needed, just physics. It can't go on and on like pro-renewables types do

The comment about degrading in the SA sun may have been lost on you...at and above 30 deg C degradation is more marked so cooling - which requires energy - will surely be needed i.e. consuming energy not producing it.

This type of battery tech isn't fully mature but it's old science. The inevitable hysteresis / depth of discharge / full charge dwelling / charge voltage issues haven't gone away.

If a Trigger's Broom approach is available then that would help but "that's not the same thing"

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Snapshot of Gridwatch :

And what has to be shut down to allow the wind to supply energy again?

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Jinx said:

But they don't supply energy - not in any useful fashion as the other forms of real energy supply are still needed. These are additional deaths that are being ignored.

Snapshot of Gridwatch :

Spot the small scale for the wind dial.

Intermittent bit-part use is the problem not a good thing.

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Jinx said:

But they don't supply energy - not in any useful fashion as the other forms of real energy supply are still needed. These are additional deaths that are being ignored.

Snapshot of Gridwatch :

Wind overcomes intermittency for a day?

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Ali G said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Jinx said:

But they don't supply energy - not in any useful fashion as the other forms of real energy supply are still needed. These are additional deaths that are being ignored.

Snapshot of Gridwatch :

Wind overcomes intermittency for a day?

Jinx said they don't supply energy (a stupid statement itself, but let's gloss over that)

So looked.

They (WTG) were providing 5GW of power to the grid, 20% of the requirement

So he is wrong.


I know your views on intermittency, but the facts remain as above.
5GW and he was wrong.

Tomorrow - it could be zilch, nix and nada GW and Jinx would be correct.

That's the thing about intermittency.

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Whats the bet it won't be 'Zilch' ?

I'll wager £100.
You in ?

Gambling is for mugs and losers.

[rolando]

Here's an example of the effectiveness of wind in following demand.
Over the past 12 months the highest weekly average demand was 16 January 2017 at 41.2GW
Of this, 28.06GW was met by fossil fuels (CCGT 20.77GW, Coal 7.78GW + some odds and sods), Nuclear 7.31GW, and other stuff such as hydro, pumped, interconnects etc.
Wind provided a paltry average over the week of 1.2GW, less than 3% of demand. Hardly a significant contribution.

Source

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Jinx said they don't supply energy (a stupid statement itself, but let's gloss over that)

So looked.

They (WTG) were providing 5GW of power to the grid, 20% of the requirement

So he is wrong.


I know your views on intermittency, but the facts remain as above.
5GW and he was wrong.

No they turned off 5GW of energy supply so wind could have a go.

[rolando]

Jinx said:

No they turned off 5GW of energy supply so wind could have a go.

More to the point is that they had to turn off 5GW of energy supply so wind could have a go. If they hadn't, the balance of the grid would have been buggered.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

By saying "waste of a few billion of tax payer hard earned" are you assuming it will fail ?

Is that because of greater in sight in to Battery tech and the load balancing requirements than the billion dollar companies of Neoen and Tesla ?
Or because of a hunch ?

i am saying that because current technology suggests they won't be fit for purpose. i am pretty sure the reasoning behind the billions wasted on the desal plants was justified in similar fashion at the time. all above, as always, imo.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Whats the bet it won't be 'Zilch' ?

I'll wager £100.
You in ?

not on that, but will have a bet on people going to mars by 2030

[Gary C]

Lotus 50 said:

PRTVR said:

And yet again you miss the point, wind turbines are supposed to be green and clean, the saviour of the planet, but what is happening is out of sight and so out of mind, but the pollution is still happening, yet again it appears as if as with the birds it doesn't matter because it's for the greater good.

You seem to be assuming that there are no bird casualties resulting from nuclear or fossil fuel power generation - one of the refs I posted earlier shows that of the 3 forms of energy supply, wind turbines are the least damaging. The pollution is a result of lax environmental standards/management in the countries concerned rather than the fault of turbine production - and how much of the material produced is used in turbines vs computers, tablets, mobile phones etc etc etc?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 6th September 08:21

We certainly boil a few seagulls every now and again. They like to nest on our relief valve escape pipe work which is inaccessible to anything else and nice and warm. Every now and again we trip and 200bar of 500C steam cooks them and launches them into orbit.

Also, as gulls are such a problem in certain areas of the plant, we do hire someone (with a licence) to cull them.

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

As it happens Jinx was NOT correct :




I don't think there is any point in checking every say though to prove him wrong going forward.....

They turned off the power supply to allow wind to feed the grid - and when wind can no longer feed the grid they turn the supply back on. It is not a supply: noun (1) a stock or amount of something available for use.
As it is not available for use it is put to use when available.

[silentbrown]

Jinx said:

They turned off the power supply to allow wind to feed the grid - and when wind can no longer feed the grid they turn the supply back on.

"feed the grid". Right...

So if it wasn't for those pesky renewables we'd be able to leave all our generating stations running at a constant output 24/7, year long. Perfect...

[Jinx]

silentbrown said:

"feed the grid". Right...

So if it wasn't for those pesky renewables we'd be able to leave all our generating stations running at a constant output 24/7, year long. Perfect...

We would use supplies to provide a base-load and have CCGT on warm standby to come online when needed therefore running on the most efficient cycles. "Renewables" (all are technically renewables - just the time frame is a little extended for some fuels ) randomly come online and cause unnecessary instability to the grid therefore requiring a greater amount of supplies to be on warm standby then if they we not part of the grid. This instability causes increased inefficiency to the point where the "CO2" savings are vastly reduced.

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

silentbrown said:

"feed the grid". Right...

So if it wasn't for those pesky renewables we'd be able to leave all our generating stations running at a constant output 24/7, year long. Perfect...

We would use supplies to provide a base-load and have CCGT on warm standby to come online when needed therefore running on the most efficient cycles. "Renewables" (all are technically renewables - just the time frame is a little extended for some fuels ) randomly come online and cause unnecessary instability to the grid therefore requiring a greater amount of supplies to be on warm standby then if they we not part of the grid. This instability causes increased inefficiency to the point where the "CO2" savings are vastly reduced.

"Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say Scientists"

Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year (2013).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windp...

To avoid the inevitable 'sell-by date' nonsense, there isn't one.

Alrternative perspectives to scientists asking good old peat are available, particularly from the wind industry and its supporters.