Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
.... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... -- (\_/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:12:22 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
.... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ 99.9% = 8.766 hours per year without power. Also look at the graph it still needed 20 to 30GW of fossil back up. What is the enviromental cost of producing all those windmills, solar panels, batteries. I see no mention of how many windmills are needed or the required area of solar panels. They also make the assumption that the sun always shines or the wind always blows, somewhere. They also include the costs of health problems supposedly caused by pollution from the current fossil energy sources. How on earth do you quantify that, except to massage the figures? -- Cheers Dave. |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/2012 10:12, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
.... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... "One of the key elements in their plan would be to have a widespread geographical distribution of such intermittent sources as wind farms and photovoltaic installations – when it's windy and sunny in one location on the grid, it could be calm and overcast in another and all parts of the grid would have enough power." Widespread as in connecting UK and our severe lack of sun (at night, in the winter) with, say, Australia? While we are at it, maybe a transatlantic water grid so we can send some of our current excess to the Mississippi... -- Rod |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/2012 10:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Mike Tomlinson wrote: ... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... 1) This is the US, not the UK 2) It spins the usual fallacy that "the wind is always blowing somewhere", which may be true over a large area such as the US. Over here, we just had three days with next to no wind. In addition, if you actually have wind here, but not there, you could install enough kit so that the wind here also provided volts to cover the no-wind there. So you've just at least doubled the amount of kit you need to install, and have committed yourself to shipping large amounts or power long distances, something to be avoided on a grid (see TNP's paper for details). You haven't thought this through Tim. If its windy over there, you can use the turbines to power fans to blow air in this direction, making it windy here as well. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/12 10:12, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... its just green bollox commissioned by the oil companies to keep peop;le stick to renewable energy and with fossil backup. If you look carefully there's a lot of geographical diversity and e;electrochemical storage in there. What that means is a grid round the equator and batteries the size of australia. Its pie in the sky fantasy. Whose sole purpose is to stop people tumbling top the fact that windmills won't work, ever. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:12:22 AM UTC, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... Using 2 huge costing fiddle factors, plus missing out the huge cost of running both renewables and fossil generation, plus missing out the cost of the equipment to control and use 2 types of heating in all homes, plus avoiding the cost of the huge extra transmission network capacity. Other than that it has some kind of connection with reality... somewhere.... that I sure cant find. NT |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
|
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/2012 10:12, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... It could supply it all now.. if you just shut down everything else. It isn't meaningful unless you can say it will supply all *required* power. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
En el artículo ,
Tim Streater escribió: 1) This is the US, not the UK No ****, Sherlock. I do know where Delaware is. I thought the article was worth flagging up if only for the dubious claim that wind and solar could provide 99.9% of energy needs, since power generation is a frequent subject of lively discussion in this group. -- (\_/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , Tim Streater escribió: 1) This is the US, not the UK No ****, Sherlock. I do know where Delaware is. I thought the article was worth flagging up if only for the dubious claim that wind and solar could provide 99.9% of energy needs, since power generation is a frequent subject of lively discussion in this group. No probs, MT: I perceived it exactly that, and I'm sure most people did. My question, raised by Tim's point: 2) It spins the usual fallacy that "the wind is always blowing somewhere", which may be true over a large area such as the US. Over here, we just had three days with next to no wind. However, we are an island nation, of a small size (with nowhere further than 70m from the coast). Why the heck aren't we pursuing wave and/or tidal power? THAT will definitely always be there Incidentally there's no doubt in my mind that the reason we're seeing these monstrosities rearing up all over the landscape has less to do with the efficacy of wind power, and more to do with the largesse doled out to the landowners/sponsors who commission them: money for nothing. John |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/12 13:04, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/12/2012 10:12, Mike Tomlinson wrote: ... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... It could supply it all now.. if you just shut down everything else. It isn't meaningful unless you can say it will supply all *required* power. Renewable energy supplies all the energy in my greenhouse. Trouble is it was -5C last week. Renewable energy supplies all Rockall's needs. No one lives there. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... Renewables will have to provide 100% of the power one day, so they might as well start somewhere. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/2012 16:30, Another John wrote:
However, we are an island nation, of a small size (with nowhere further than 70m from the coast). Why the heck aren't we pursuing wave and/or tidal power? THAT will definitely always be there Wave is as unpredictable as wind. Tides happen twice a day (roughly) and you can only pull out power while the tide is flowing. There's also a scale problem - we use (waste?) far too much energy for tide to do more than help a bit. The paper that Mike posted is behind a paywall. But it seems to suggest hydrogen tanks being used for storage for 9-72 hours of power. I guess they get it from electrolysis and feed it into fuel cells - but I can't help thinking "terrorist target". They also talk about having 3 times the generating capacity that the system needs, because it's better to throw power away than not have any. Andy |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/12 20:36, Phil L wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote: ... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... Renewables will have to provide 100% of the power one day, so they might as well start somewhere. No they wont. The universe is not renewable. You mihght equally say 'we all have to die, so lets commit suicide now and get used to it'. WE have always been living ion borrowed time. The only question is which time to borrow. Since there is enough nuclear fissile material to last as long as civilisation has already, that's a start. Then fusion might get us off planet. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/12 21:40, Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/12/2012 16:30, Another John wrote: However, we are an island nation, of a small size (with nowhere further than 70m from the coast). Why the heck aren't we pursuing wave and/or tidal power? THAT will definitely always be there Wave is as unpredictable as wind. Tides happen twice a day (roughly) and you can only pull out power while the tide is flowing. There's also a scale problem - we use (waste?) far too much energy for tide to do more than help a bit. The paper that Mike posted is behind a paywall. But it seems to suggest hydrogen tanks being used for storage for 9-72 hours of power. I guess they get it from electrolysis and feed it into fuel cells - but I can't help thinking "terrorist target". I cant help thinking 'higher body count than chernobyl when it goes off bang' but there you go. Its cool to die a green death apparently. They also talk about having 3 times the generating capacity that the system needs, because it's better to throw power away than not have any. greens don't do sums with other peoples money # Andy -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:12:22 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote: ... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... Don't you just love statements like "could" provide....? By 2030 these proponents will likely have retired or gone on to propose other far-fetchèd possibilities, no doubt publically funded too. -- Frank Erskine |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 16/12/12 02:07, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:12:22 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote: ... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... Don't you just love statements like "could" provide....? By 2030 these proponents will likely have retired or gone on to propose other far-fetchèd possibilities, no doubt publically funded too. The name of the game is to provide a plausible excuse to the addle-brained politician to keep funding these ridiculous white elephants, and give the Faithful something 'academic' and 'peer reviewed' (by another fully paid up renewable 'scientist') so that Greenpeace and FOE, and any other Luddites of the Left- also full paid up and in the pocket of the big businesses - can carry on lobbying for things that simply don't work. "You mission, should you choose to accept it, is to produce a document that shows how we *could* have an almost entirely renewable grid by 2030: Any assumptions you need to make about science, technology, the laws of physics and the availability of infinite supplies of money, advances in technology beyond your wildest dreams, and the existence of a world government capable of stabilising most of the planet to achieve geographical diversity, should be made to produce a plausible document. What matters is the headline" -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On Dec 15, 10:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Since there is enough nuclear fissile material to last as long as civilisation has already, that's a start. +1 - do pass the thorium salt Then fusion might get us off planet. er... to where before the cosmic radiation "out there" kills us? Jim K |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 15/12/2012 21:31, Tim Streater wrote:
Same sort of issue really. You could have a tidal barrage across the Severn, and then one or more across, I dunno, the Humber or something (anyway, somewhere where the tide is 90deg out of phase with the Severn). Morecambe Bay IIRC. "H R Wallingfords research consisted of both on site measurement and modelling and identified that the maximum outputs for power production outputs in the Bay could be as much as 2-3GW." http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/industries/power/news/bridge-across-the-bay The biggest Severn scheme, if Wikipedia and the Beeb can be believed, is 8Gw. For 8 hours per day, and not at neaps. Andy |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On Dec 15, 10:12*am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... -- *(\_/) (='.'=) (")_(") We have the largest tidal potential here of almost anywhere. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 16/12/12 17:22, harry wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:12 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote: ... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... -- (\_/) (='.'=) (")_(") We have the largest tidal potential here of almost anywhere. And its still not worth even ****ing around with -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 16/12/12 11:05, Jim K wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Since there is enough nuclear fissile material to last as long as civilisation has already, that's a start. +1 - do pass the thorium salt Then fusion might get us off planet. er... to where before the cosmic radiation "out there" kills us? who knows? easy enough to push shielded spaceships about. Lets face it half of today's yoof never go outside anyway, so living underground on deep fried Mars Bars would seem to be ideal. We could fire off generation ships full of greens to mess up some other planet. Jim K -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 16/12/12 16:43, Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/12/2012 21:31, Tim Streater wrote: Same sort of issue really. You could have a tidal barrage across the Severn, and then one or more across, I dunno, the Humber or something (anyway, somewhere where the tide is 90deg out of phase with the Severn). Morecambe Bay IIRC. "H R Wallingfords research consisted of both on site measurement and modelling and identified that the maximum outputs for power production outputs in the Bay could be as much as 2-3GW." http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/industries/power/news/bridge-across-the-bay The biggest Severn scheme, if Wikipedia and the Beeb can be believed, is 8Gw. For 8 hours per day, and not at neaps. Andy peak outputs are useless. Its lowest output and peak to mean ratio that determines usefulness. http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf read it. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On 16/12/2012 18:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/12 16:43, Andy Champ wrote: On 15/12/2012 21:31, Tim Streater wrote: Same sort of issue really. You could have a tidal barrage across the Severn, and then one or more across, I dunno, the Humber or something (anyway, somewhere where the tide is 90deg out of phase with the Severn). Morecambe Bay IIRC. "H R Wallingfords research consisted of both on site measurement and modelling and identified that the maximum outputs for power production outputs in the Bay could be as much as 2-3GW." http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/industries/power/news/bridge-across-the-bay The biggest Severn scheme, if Wikipedia and the Beeb can be believed, is 8Gw. For 8 hours per day, and not at neaps. Andy peak outputs are useless. Its lowest output and peak to mean ratio that determines usefulness. http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf read it. You are preaching to the choir Which part of "For 8 hours per day, and not at neaps." did you not understand? I'm quite aware that Morecambe Bay plus the Severn might let us shut down Sizewell B, and perhaps Hinkley Point - but nothing else. And only at the cost of some pretty significant wildlife sites. Andy |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
"Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030"
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:12:22 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
... according to a study by the Uni of Delaware. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ewables_study/ We've got the wind here but not the solar... It's time to start burning the greens -- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|