Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:42:45 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/10 13:32, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:04:58 +0100, Tim wrote:

On 13/05/10 12:45, Tim Streater wrote:

I favour what I'm told is "tidal stream". Effectively you take a
windmill, turn it upside down, and plonk it in the water. Remember that
the tide happens twice a day, every day. No windless days there. Still,
my niece who works in this field says that there is no silver bullet and
renewables will need to be a mix.

I like that idea. Predictable too, which will help National Grid's
supply planning.

Yes, it's predictable. It happens every 12 hours, 25 minutes so it
predictably, but inconveniently, gets 50 minutes later every day.

That means that, on some days of the week, peak power will coincide
with peak demand. On most other days, it won't. The cycle repeats
exactly every 14 days, with 27 tides per fortnight.

Not much use when demand peaks at the same times every day!

So for most of the time, not enough Watts, Tim. ;-)

Laugh? I nearly cracked a rib! ;-


Sorry, couldn't resist. I bet you heard it a million times before.


Seriously... At least it seems more potent, or less impotent than wind
power. There is always demand, so I presume this means they can ramp the
gas generators down a bit which is a good thing.

But, yes, I agree. Peak demand is the big problem.


If there was a will to build more pumped storage schemes similar to
that at Dinorwig, tidal and wind power would become much more viable.
The trouble is, there is a lack of a strategic view, and the private
sector isn't going to build another Dinorwig of its own accord.


2 points, its not will, its suitable places.

And a pumped storage to back up a power station DOUBLES the amount of
generating capacity you have to build. I.e. a 1GW station with 1GW of
backup is 2Gw of overall generating capacity. And a very fat cable
joining them.

Dinorwig is useful, because it copes with short term peak to mean
fluctuations..allowing demand ripples to not result in supply ripples.,
It doesn't need to be very big to do that, and means that you can save a
power station somewhere that would otherwise be running at low
efficiency locked in and ready to take load.

But as backup for serious amounts of wind power? forget it. As I said.
loch Ness 1000 feet deep and 300GW of turbine capacity would keep the
country - the whole total country, all its energy needs, running for 48
hours.

Imagine emptying a 1000 foot deep loch Ness in 48 hours. That's what the
countries energy needs are.

Now look at the pretty windmills..turning slowly in the breeze..and wet
yourself laughing.


I notice in the
fuller "manifesto" they mention "smart grid" and "smart meters".
Anything to smooth the demand would be good. Although I do wonder who
can take advantage? Many people have ditched electric storage heating in
favour of gas. Haven't check the prices recently but I think gas is
still cheaper than Economy 7? Not to mention that topping up in the day
is cripplingly expensive (I should know, no gas CH yet).


Don't worry, someone will be along in a minute to tell us that nuclear
power is "too cheap to meter". It's actually more expensive than wind
power, but that uncomfortable fact never seems to make an appearance.


Its not,m but its a convenient lie for its detractors.