Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cells

Trust Government To Make The Right Decisions….wind Power Again

Recommended Posts

Wow. Nice data

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/electricity/electricity.aspx

80,000GWH of gas can be saved upgrading gas plants. This is already happening but a small subsidy would see them all upgraded within 3-5 years imo. Total cost £10B. Subsidy to speed things up…perhaps £2B. this is equal to building equivalent to about 20GW of wind.

37,000GWH of coal saved upgrading coal plants.

18,000GWH of oil saved replacing very inefficient oil plants with the new gas plants!

This is equivalent to 30GW of wind power!!

F.hell shows how stupid government subsiding pet projects is.

In less than 5 years the government could shut down all the oil plants and half the coal plants just upgrading the gas plants. Ie we use no more gas but use half the coal and no oil in power generation! All for potentially just £2B!!!

Shows just how damaging wind turbines are to the environment! and multiply this by equi of 20 UKs (the west) thinking wind is the answer

Also highlights how this second dash for gas is great for the country, economy and enviroment!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shows just how damaging wind turbines are to the environment! and multiply this by equi of 20 UKs (the west) thinking wind is the answer

Good point, the government aren't interested in sensible solutions like this though. They'd to prefer to spend £bns on white elephants to make it look like they're doing something, regardless of whether they solve anything.

There's definately an intelligence vacuum here in the UK, the gov't is either stuffed with buffoons or they're worried the public cannot cope with a grown up debate over energy policy. It's a vicious circle, we vote fools in and to stay in they have to appeal to the foolish element of the electorate. Common sense has been sidelined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, the government aren't interested in sensible solutions like this though. They'd to prefer to spend £bns on white elephants to make it look like they're doing something, regardless of whether they solve anything.

There's definately an intelligence vacuum here in the UK, the gov't is either stuffed with buffoons or they're worried the public cannot cope with a grown up debate over energy policy. It's a vicious circle, we vote fools in and to stay in they have to appeal to the foolish element of the electorate. Common sense has been sidelined.

This is what it's all about - Look to the top of the pile as usual!

Elite landowners creaming off Billions (forcing electric prices to consumers higher)

We seek farmers and land owners to lease land for wind farms!

If you own farm land in a windy area, with a high voltage transmission line traversing your property, we want to talk with you about leasing your land for a clean, renewable wind farm! We sign long-term land leases with farmers and land owners, paying a portion of the project revenues as rent.

As an illustration of the potential rent, if you own 1,300 acres (or about two sections) of contiguous land in a windy area, we could install about 25 wind turbines, equating to about a 40 megawatt wind farm, thereby creating rental income of over $200,000 per year, escalated over time (however, please recognize that this is only an illustration — each site varies depending upon wind speed and market power rates, among other variables). If interested, please contact us for more details.

You imagine how most of our land in the UK is owned by 0.6% of the population and you can easily work out who is screwing us by forcing this crap 'windpower' scam on the population!

'Windmills' lead us to 'Billy' Goat Orange men again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw in a small spanner.. could it be anything to do with energy security?

I'm not a big proponent of wind power, but the solution you suggest seems to hinge around total dependence on access to gas and those who supply it.

While I don't doubt it's probably more efficient, it would put all of our eggs in one basket so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw in a small spanner.. could it be anything to do with energy security?

I'm not a big proponent of wind power, but the solution you suggest seems to hinge around total dependence on access to gas and those who supply it.

While I don't doubt it's probably more efficient, it would put all of our eggs in one basket so to speak.

What do we do if it's not windy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw in a small spanner.. could it be anything to do with energy security?

I'm not a big proponent of wind power, but the solution you suggest seems to hinge around total dependence on access to gas and those who supply it.

While I don't doubt it's probably more efficient, it would put all of our eggs in one basket so to speak.

I suppose it comes down to the opportunity cost. If there's £5bn in the kitty for example how do we ensure we get the best value for money?

As turbines are expensive, unreliable, cumbersome and a fairly new technology there are probably loads of better ways to spend the cash. I'd rather stockpile fossil fuels than build turbines, at least they're reliable in a crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we do if it's not windy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating wind power at all.. just suggesting why a strong dependency on gas may have been ruled out despite it's efficiency.

I'm not even slightly an expert in the area, but I think solar has some potential if energy storage becomes cheap enough. With thin film technology slowly taking off it should only be a relatively short time before these panels become really cheap. If they empower poeple by taking away the regulations preventing them installing them themselves I reckon micro generation would take off in a big way.

Otherwise coal is a good bet because we still have the ability to extract it on our own shores in a situation of national emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw in a small spanner.. could it be anything to do with energy security?

I'm not a big proponent of wind power, but the solution you suggest seems to hinge around total dependence on access to gas and those who supply it.

While I don't doubt it's probably more efficient, it would put all of our eggs in one basket so to speak.

You wouldn’t be relying more on anything in that you are not using more gas or coal or oil so you are no less secure. You replace/upgrade the old gas fleet with new ones at a tiny cost. These burn the gas at 58-60% efficiency instead of the fleet average of about 46%.

Then you can shut down half the coal plants, all the oil plants. Overall saving is equal to the grand plan of 30GW of wind at perhaps only 2% of the cost and done potentially over 3 years instead of 10-20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating wind power at all.. just suggesting why a strong dependency on gas may have been ruled out despite it's efficiency.

I'm not even slightly an expert in the area, but I think solar has some potential if energy storage becomes cheap enough. With thin film technology slowly taking off it should only be a relatively short time before these panels become really cheap. If they empower poeple by taking away the regulations preventing them installing them themselves I reckon micro generation would take off in a big way.

Otherwise coal is a good bet because we still have the ability to extract it on our own shores in a situation of national emergency.

I agree.

Cells' point is good, it would seem sensible to upgrade the efficiency of the existing gas plants more quickly, but diversification of the generation capacity would seem a good longterm policy as well, do we really want to have to beg the Norwegians et al for gas?

For wind power, is it worth the gamble that one day we'll find a sensible way to store/smooth the energy generated and make the damned things really useful? On balance I'd say yes, but I can understand why others say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

Cells' point is good, it would seem sensible to upgrade the efficiency of the existing gas plants more quickly, but diversification of the generation capacity would seem a good longterm policy as well, do we really want to have to beg the Norwegians et al for gas?

For wind power, is it worth the gamble that one day we'll find a sensible way to store/smooth the energy generated and make the damned things really useful? On balance I'd say yes, but I can understand why others say no.

100 TWH saved upgrading plants. Subsidy... about 2B...done in 3 years.

Building 10k turbines to save 100TW. Subsidy...perhaps 100B...done over 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 TWH saved upgrading plants. Subsidy... about 2B...done in 3 years.

Building 10k turbines to save 100TW. Subsidy...perhaps 100B...done over 15 years.

See what you mean, the figures look pretty bad the way you quote them.

However energy planning is very long term, and this is only one moment in time. Gas is relatively cheap right now on a global level. There are friendly-ish neighbours happy to sell it to us. Who can say how long that will last?

I say accelerate the gas upgrades but keep up the windfarm developments, we'll need the extra power even at the high cost, you'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say accelerate the gas upgrades but keep up the windfarm developments, we'll need the extra power even at the high cost, you'll see.

For the sake of the thread, can you let us all know how many conventionally fuelled power stations Denmark has managed to decommission as a result of installing wind capacity up to 20% of its peak demand?

Actually don't bother. I'll let you know. It's Zero.

Don't you have a sustainable future to plan, or something? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See what you mean, the figures look pretty bad the way you quote them.

However energy planning is very long term, and this is only one moment in time. Gas is relatively cheap right now on a global level. There are friendly-ish neighbours happy to sell it to us. Who can say how long that will last?

This argument is full of holes. The only way we would not get gas/coal/oil is if global trade fails. That is a near impossibility and if it did happen I suspect being nuked would be a bigger fear than if our homes are colder than we would want.

I say accelerate the gas upgrades but keep up the windfarm developments, we'll need the extra power even at the high cost, you'll see.

Yes but as this has proven to me the government doesn’t know best. I suspect that £100B could be spent much more wisely. Subsidies always lead to poor allocation of resources.

this is only one moment in time.

The more I learn about the new generation of gas fired plants the more impressed I become. They really are masterpieces of technology.

Reason I say it don’t matter what the future holds is because these things are so cheap in terms of power stations. If you order a single 1GW station you’re looking at £500m. if you order a few it can be as low as £380m.

So to build 10GW your looking at £4-5B. This isn’t a subsidy this is the full cost. Peanuts! The subsidy to make this happen very quickly would likely be less than £1B yet the impact would be HUGE.

Even if gas gets expensive or somewhat limited these plants would have a use. The new generation are fantastic peaking plants. You can run them at 10% of capacity while maintaining efficient generation and ramp right upto 100% within minutes!! That isn’t possible with current gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is full of holes. The only way we would not get gas/coal/oil is if global trade fails. That is a near impossibility and if it did happen I suspect being nuked would be a bigger fear than if our homes are colder than we would want.

Yes but as this has proven to me the government doesn’t know best. I suspect that £100B could be spent much more wisely. Subsidies always lead to poor allocation of resources.

The more I learn about the new generation of gas fired plants the more impressed I become. They really are masterpieces of technology.

Reason I say it don’t matter what the future holds is because these things are so cheap in terms of power stations. If you order a single 1GW station you’re looking at £500m. if you order a few it can be as low as £380m.

So to build 10GW your looking at £4-5B. This isn’t a subsidy this is the full cost. Peanuts! The subsidy to make this happen very quickly would likely be less than £1B yet the impact would be HUGE.

Even if gas gets expensive or somewhat limited these plants would have a use. The new generation are fantastic peaking plants. You can run them at 10% of capacity while maintaining efficient generation and ramp right upto 100% within minutes!! That isn’t possible with current gas.

What do you mean if Gas get expensive, gas is expensive trust me. My business packages Gas Turbines, industrial users cannot afford to invest as the cost of gas to generating power is uneconomical. As an engineer I am growing frustrated by people on this board with the energy sector experience of a combined month or two "but I do check my gas bill" etc.

There is no money in gas as it is getting more costly, China wants it, the Russians have it, and quite frankly we are screwed. I know, some of my former university course members are involved in E&P for some of the UK and international majors and they all tell me it is becoming more costly.

The myth of cheap fossil fuels needs to die.

Why do you think I am joining a large company making and installing wind turbines? Because we need it and we need nuclear, not a finite resource which makes us dependent on unstable countries.

PS We charge our clients for testing here in the SW, and they baulk at the expensive of a 3 day package generator test at our WHOLESALE prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think I am joining a large company making and installing wind turbines?

Which will also become uneconomical once the subsidies are withdrawn. It's been done over many times. Wind power simply does not make sense, other than possibly as a "whoops we messed up in our planning, we need something that's quick to build because anything is better than nothing, however unreliable and insufficient" measure. As I've pointed out numerous times what would've been the effect of having to have relied at all on wind during the last cold-but-not-very-windy winter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which will also become uneconomical once the subsidies are withdrawn. It's been done over many times. Wind power simply does not make sense, other than possibly as a "whoops we messed up in our planning, we need something that's quick to build because anything is better than nothing, however unreliable and insufficient" measure. As I've pointed out numerous times what would've been the effect of having to have relied at all on wind during the last cold-but-not-very-windy winter?

Really and what were the offshore windspeeds? Please do tell as I am ultra curious now. I always love bowing to superior knowledge. So go ahead impress me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of the thread, can you let us all know how many conventionally fuelled power stations Denmark has managed to decommission as a result of installing wind capacity up to 20% of its peak demand?

Actually don't bother. I'll let you know. It's Zero.

Don't you have a sustainable future to plan, or something? :rolleyes:

What's your point?

Mine is that it's not all about planning for next year.

It's clear that currently wind power is a bit crap because of its lack of reliability when integrated into a power delivery and distribution system set up the way the National Grid is (and presumably that in Denmark). Tricky to decommission power stations when you might suddenly need them for 15 days of the year.

However planning for the longterm future may involve improving power storage and transmission which will suddenly make wind power less crap. If conventional power stations are built in a way that enables them to be ramped up and down quickly according to demand (not currently the case) then that will help as well.

Edit :Hadn't read Cells post saying how the new gas power stations are more flexible. Clearly they're going to end up being a big part of the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your point?

Mine is that it's not all about planning for next year.

It's clear that currently wind power is a bit crap because of its lack of reliability when integrated into a power delivery and distribution system set up the way the National Grid is (and presumably that in Denmark). Tricky to decommission power stations when you might suddenly need them for 15 days of the year.

However planning for the longterm future may involve improving power storage and transmission which will suddenly make wind power less crap. If conventional power stations are built in a way that enables them to be ramped up and down quickly according to demand (not currently the case) then that will help as well.

New offshore installations utilising large diameter gearboxless turbines are far from crap.

As an engineer kind of getting bored with some of the crap spouted by non engineers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is full of holes. The only way we would not get gas/coal/oil is if global trade fails. That is a near impossibility and if it did happen I suspect being nuked would be a bigger fear than if our homes are colder than we would want.

Yes but as this has proven to me the government doesn’t know best. I suspect that £100B could be spent much more wisely. Subsidies always lead to poor allocation of resources.

The more I learn about the new generation of gas fired plants the more impressed I become. They really are masterpieces of technology.

Reason I say it don’t matter what the future holds is because these things are so cheap in terms of power stations. If you order a single 1GW station you’re looking at £500m. if you order a few it can be as low as £380m.

So to build 10GW your looking at £4-5B. This isn’t a subsidy this is the full cost. Peanuts! The subsidy to make this happen very quickly would likely be less than £1B yet the impact would be HUGE.

Even if gas gets expensive or somewhat limited these plants would have a use. The new generation are fantastic peaking plants. You can run them at 10% of capacity while maintaining efficient generation and ramp right upto 100% within minutes!! That isn’t possible with current gas.

Interesting post.

Your faith in international trade is greater than mine, you're obviously not Ukranian!

If these new gas stations are as good as you say(in terms of flexibility), they would actually make integrating wind turbines into the grid a lot easier. They should consider decommissioning old stations and replacing them with these.

Remember the wind turbines will save gas on a massive scale when they are running (probably 50 weeks of the year when considering them on a UK-wide level)

Some nukes, the wind turbines and these gas stations may get the UK out of a hole, assuming the Norwegians don't turn the tap off or ask for too much money.

I agree that subsidies are crap, but feel that it is a necessary evil in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really and what were the offshore windspeeds? Please do tell as I am ultra curious now. I always love bowing to superior knowledge. So go ahead impress me.

I might have gone and found out if you'd replied in a less childish manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New offshore installations utilising large diameter gearboxless turbines are far from crap.

As an engineer kind of getting bored with some of the crap spouted by non engineers.

It's irrelevant how marvellous the engineering of the new wind turbines is(I don't doubt what you say, mind)

The crapness comes from the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time and the rest of the grid/generation system has difficulty making up the shortfall, plus the problem of the transmission losses over long distances from these offshore turbines will need solving, but you know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have gone and found out if you'd replied in a less childish manner.

Touche sir I do so feel admonished.

Hey why not go out and buy some low CO GT plant, if it so economical having your own 60MW GT with an exhaust fired boiler and steam turbine would only set you back around 30 million GBP, and as the argument is that generating this way is so cheap, banks would be mad to turn down your figures over operating cost and payback figures.

Oh wait, lots of industrial steam users have beat you to it, sorry completely wrong they aren't bothering as it doesn't make financial sense.

Coffee is available for those waking up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touche sir I do so feel admonished.

Hey why not go out and buy some low CO GT plant, if it so economical having your own 60MW GT with an exhaust fired boiler and steam turbine would only set you back around 30 million GBP, and as the argument is that generating this way is so cheap, banks would be mad to turn down your figures over operating cost and payback figures.

Oh wait, lots of industrial steam users have beat you to it, sorry completely wrong they aren't bothering as it doesn't make financial sense.

Coffee is available for those waking up.

If you've got a point to make then try doing so without resorting to sarcasm. Sarcasm is not going to persuade me to change my mind. It just makes you look like you're not interested in having a debate, and that you can't cope with a different view to your own. With that attitude you're never going to get anyone to agree with you who doesn't already. I shouldn't need to have to explain this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's irrelevant how marvellous the engineering of the new wind turbines is(I don't doubt what you say, mind)

The crapness comes from the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time and the rest of the grid/generation system has difficulty making up the shortfall, plus the problem of the transmission losses over long distances from these offshore turbines will need solving, but you know this.

DRAKA Cable, more than aware of how to transmit power whilst minimising loses.

Siemens offshore switchgear substations.

The wind actually does blow at some part of the UK coastline or further offshore. Chance of an anticyclone covering every offshore windfarm are slim. I am not advocating total wind farms but they are necessary and in comparison to what I am doing now make more sense over the long term when combined with nuclear. Until other renewable catch up then it will have to be wind.

Unless of course there is a major breakthrough at ITER in materials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DRAKA Cable, more than aware of how to transmit power whilst minimising loses.

Siemens offshore switchgear substations.

The wind actually does blow at some part of the UK coastline or further offshore. Chance of an anticyclone covering every offshore windfarm are slim. I am not advocating total wind farms but they are necessary and in comparison to what I am doing now make more sense over the long term when combined with nuclear. Until other renewable catch up then it will have to be wind.

Unless of course there is a major breakthrough at ITER in materials

That's the sort of reply that is worth discussing.

There are two problems I have with it. Firstly, "chances are slim" isn't the same as "chances are none". If you're to keep the supply going reliably then your minimum generating capacity needs to be equal to your maximum demand. So even if the odds of no turbines working is small enough to accept you also need to work out what the odds of not enough working are, and see if that's acceptable, and if you'll always have sufficient standby that can be fired up quickly enough. Depending on the nature of that standby that might run out too of course, particularly if it's something like hydroelectric or stockpiled fossil fuels. So you also need to ensure that you always have enough stockpiled to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. So, considering that you need to have these other facilities at all, it starts to raise the question of whether it's worth bothering with the wind at all. Just from the economic point of view I suppose it depends on the relative cost of building and eventually dismantling these plants to running them, as well as considering how the economics of any form of generation are skewed by subsidies and penalties.

Another recent thread persuaded me that instead of being a complete waste of time, wind power might be needed as a short to medium term "small and unreliable is better than none" stopgap. Long-term though I've never seen an explanation as to why having both nuclear and wind together is a course worth persuing, considering the vastly differing capabilities and reliability, particularly since nuclear isn't (as far as I know) much good as a backup - it can't be turned on and off quickly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 150 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.