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 |
#41
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:44:46 +0000
bert ] wrote: You must be joking. Correct. -- Davey. |
#42
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:50:51 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote: In message , bert ] writes In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes In article , RJH wrote: You don't even need engineering knowledge to realise that the wind is not constant! On how many summer evenings has it dropped to nothing an hour or so before sunset, just when folks are turning their lights on? You have to wonder, indeed. snip Simples Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they could provide 100% of our needs? Furthermore, if the wind happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they be capable of generating? We had a several-hour long stretch this afternoon when there was no wind. This, despite the forecast yesterday having predicted all-day rain and wind. The four idiotic devices that cloud our horizon produced not one watt of power for all that time. So the power that was used anyway came from somewhere, and it wasn't there. -- Davey. |
#43
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
RJH wrote:
Wind power was never supposed to 'keep the lights on'. It was only ever part of a package. I do wonder if people don't know that. But if the wind doesn't blow when the power is desperately needed, what then? You wouldn't allow such a situation to develop in your own life; why allow it in the life of the nation? Bill |
#44
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In message , Tim Streater
writes In article , Ian Jackson wrote: Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they could provide 100% of our needs? Furthermore, if the wind happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they be capable of generating? Lessee now, according to Gridwatch there are times when our 5GW wind plant dips below 50MW. Like most of July this year. If we need around 50GW, it is easy to see that we'd need 1000 times as many turbines as we have now, to cover 100% of our need at any time. And at peak times (as in recent days), they'd produce 5000GW. OK. When there wasn't much wind, 1000 times the number of existing turbines (let's call it 'N') would be required to (hopefully) reliably produce the required 50GW. However, last July, the turbines that WERE capable of producing that meagre 50MW would have been those in places where there actually WAS some wind. In order to generate 50GW at that time, all N turbines would have had to be in the same places. But, of course, there would be times when the wind wasn't blowing at those places, but was somewhere else instead. You would therefore have to have lots of other areas where there were N turbines - ie you would have them covering the whole country virtually from end to end. Any more bright ideas? Quite. -- Ian |
#45
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Chris Hogg posted
But as Harry rightly says, no-one ever envisaged all, or even more than a modest amount, of our electricity being generated from wind. But as other have equally rightly said, why bother to build two systems of generation (wind + nuclear/gas/coal) when one (nuclear/gas/coal) will do just as well. Because (the greenies say) it will reduce the total output of undesirable waste products like CO2 and spent nuclear fuel. The argument being that you don't have to use the non-renewable energy sources while the wind *is* blowing, even if it doesn't blow all the time. -- Les |
#46
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 29/10/2014 23:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , bert ] writes Because as has been explained many times the two principle ones available are intermittent. There is nothing on the horizon that come remotely near to being capable of producing the levels of energy required and there is nothing on the horizon in terms of storing significant amounts of electrical energy. So no matter how many windmills or solar farms you build you still need equivalent back up in reliable constantly available power and if that back up is nuclear, whose operation is very green, then having built it you may as well run it 24/7 and so building all the windmills and solar farms in the first place is rendered pointless. Simples Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they could provide 100% of our needs? Depends on what you mean by "a little". There are times the output from all of them is zero (rare), plenty of times when its under 5%. Taken across the year the load factor is somewhere between 25% and 30% With enough dispatchable CCGT generating capacity we could probably balance the grid with perhaps 50% more notional installed capacity than we currently have. Any more capacity than that would be pointless really. Furthermore, if the wind happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they be capable of generating? With what we currently have, they could in theory reach about 25% of demand - depending on time of day / year. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#47
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 30/10/2014 10:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Tim Streater writes In article , Ian Jackson wrote: Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they could provide 100% of our needs? Furthermore, if the wind happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they be capable of generating? Lessee now, according to Gridwatch there are times when our 5GW wind plant dips below 50MW. Like most of July this year. If we need around 50GW, it is easy to see that we'd need 1000 times as many turbines as we have now, to cover 100% of our need at any time. And at peak times (as in recent days), they'd produce 5000GW. OK. When there wasn't much wind, 1000 times the number of existing turbines (let's call it 'N') would be required to (hopefully) reliably produce the required 50GW. You can't even count on that. There are times where "no wind" means none at all (at least capable of generating). So you will always need 100% of demand as backup capacity. However, last July, the turbines that WERE capable of producing that meagre 50MW would have been those in places where there actually WAS some wind. In order to generate 50GW at that time, all N turbines would have had to be in the same places. But, of course, there would be times when the wind wasn't blowing at those places, but was somewhere else instead. You would therefore have to have lots of other areas where there were N turbines - ie you would have them covering the whole country virtually from end to end. Perhaps we need mobile turbines ;-) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#48
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 29/10/2014 09:57, Bill wrote:
In message , Davey writes On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:33:42 +0000 bert ] wrote: Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...Wind-farms-can -never-be-relied-upon-to-deliver-UK-energy-security.html "Wind farms can never be relied upon to keep the lights on in Britain because there are long periods each winter in which they produce barely any power, according to a new report by the Adam Smith Institute." Anyone with an ounce of engineering knowledge could have told them that years ago. You don't even need engineering knowledge to realise that the wind is not constant! On how many summer evenings has it dropped to nothing an hour or so before sunset, just when folks are turning their lights on? You have to wonder, indeed. I wonder why people have to keep using this argument to knock wind generation. It was never intended as a total replacement for other forms of power generation, but as a top up when available, therefore reducing the amount of coal, gas, nuclear used. Its a fair point in theory, but the practicalities make it very difficult in real life. Nuclear and coal can't be modulated quickly enough to balance the variability of the wind (and there is not much point trying to save nuclear fuel anyway since its a negligible part of the cost of running the plant). So all wind is really doing is displacing gas. The way it has been implemented (more importantly the say the subsidies work), its non economic not to use the wind power when it is available. Thus pushing gas generation off the grid. This sounds like a "good thing" at a superficial level, but the implication is that you may well be forcing generators off the grid at the time when they are going to generate most of their income. So it then becomes no profitable to build and operate gas plant. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#49
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Chris Hogg posted
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:18:53 +0000, Big Les Wade wrote: Because (the greenies say) it will reduce the total output of undesirable waste products like CO2 and spent nuclear fuel. The argument being that you don't have to use the non-renewable energy sources while the wind *is* blowing, even if it doesn't blow all the time. That argument would be fine, if the amount of wind-generated electricity resulted in an equivalent amount of coal-fired generation being switched off with the reduction in CO2 that that would save. But it doesn't, because coal-fired power stations have to be kept up and running on standby to enable them rapidly to be brought back on line when the wind drops. It's known as 'hot spinning'. I'm not sure of the relative amounts of CO2 produced by a power station on standby compared with when running on full power, but it's somewhere around 50%, I believe. Perhaps someone can give me the correct figure. Etherington says the CO2 saving is between 30 and 50% of the equivalent installed wind capacity. http://tinyurl.com/b5qjpub Is it not feasible to "turn down" a gas-fired power station so that you run it at slightly below capacity when the wind is blowing, and then turn it up again when the wind drops? Do they really have to be either 100% on or on standby with nothing in between? But France produces very little CO2 in its electricity generation, simply because most of it comes from nuclear. If we had more nuclear plants, we would cut our CO2 emissions, and wouldn't need wind generators. Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the whole renewable thing is moot anyway. And it's becoming increasingly questionable whether global warming is happening. If it's not, then CO2 emissions are irrelevant anyway. Same applies. -- Les |
#50
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On Thursday, 30 October 2014 14:57:20 UTC, Big Les Wade wrote:
Is it not feasible to "turn down" a gas-fired power station so that you run it at slightly below capacity when the wind is blowing, and then turn it up again when the wind drops? Do they really have to be either 100% on or on standby with nothing in between? Wouldn;t that depend on where the wind was, wind is rarely constant. (unless you have a cider and kebab supper). even in an hour it can change wquite a bit up and down the contry and it's not easily predicatable in a short time. Although there are p[lans for a £97m computer upgrade. |
#51
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:15:04 +0000
John Rumm wrote: On 30/10/2014 10:43, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Tim Streater writes In article , Ian Jackson wrote: Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they could provide 100% of our needs? Furthermore, if the wind happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they be capable of generating? Lessee now, according to Gridwatch there are times when our 5GW wind plant dips below 50MW. Like most of July this year. If we need around 50GW, it is easy to see that we'd need 1000 times as many turbines as we have now, to cover 100% of our need at any time. And at peak times (as in recent days), they'd produce 5000GW. OK. When there wasn't much wind, 1000 times the number of existing turbines (let's call it 'N') would be required to (hopefully) reliably produce the required 50GW. You can't even count on that. There are times where "no wind" means none at all (at least capable of generating). So you will always need 100% of demand as backup capacity. However, last July, the turbines that WERE capable of producing that meagre 50MW would have been those in places where there actually WAS some wind. In order to generate 50GW at that time, all N turbines would have had to be in the same places. But, of course, there would be times when the wind wasn't blowing at those places, but was somewhere else instead. You would therefore have to have lots of other areas where there were N turbines - ie you would have them covering the whole country virtually from end to end. Perhaps we need mobile turbines ;-) Wind-powered with sails? -- Davey |
#52
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In message ,
whisky-dave writes On Thursday, 30 October 2014 14:57:20 UTC, Big Les Wade wrote: Is it not feasible to "turn down" a gas-fired power station so that you run it at slightly below capacity when the wind is blowing, and then turn it up again when the wind drops? Do they really have to be either 100% on or on standby with nothing in between? Wouldn;t that depend on where the wind was, wind is rarely constant. (unless you have a cider and kebab supper). even in an hour it can change wquite a bit up and down the contry and it's not easily predicatable in a short time. Although there are p[lans for a £97m computer upgrade. I wonder how many wind turbines it takes to power a £97M computer? -- Ian |
#53
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In message , John
Rumm writes On 29/10/2014 23:50, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , bert ] writes Because as has been explained many times the two principle ones available are intermittent. There is nothing on the horizon that come remotely near to being capable of producing the levels of energy required and there is nothing on the horizon in terms of storing significant amounts of electrical energy. So no matter how many windmills or solar farms you build you still need equivalent back up in reliable constantly available power and if that back up is nuclear, whose operation is very green, then having built it you may as well run it 24/7 and so building all the windmills and solar farms in the first place is rendered pointless. Simples Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they could provide 100% of our needs? Depends on what you mean by "a little". There are times the output from all of them is zero (rare), plenty of times when its under 5%. Taken across the year the load factor is somewhere between 25% and 30% With enough dispatchable CCGT generating capacity we could probably balance the grid with perhaps 50% more notional installed capacity than we currently have. Any more capacity than that would be pointless really. Furthermore, if the wind happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they be capable of generating? With what we currently have, they could in theory reach about 25% of demand - depending on time of day / year. Are you missing my point? What I was getting at was "Based on ongoing experience of how little a contribution wind can sometimes make, (hypothetically) how many wind turbines would it take to have a fair chance of meeting our full-load demand?" I'm know this is not a realistic goal, but it might show up how totally inadequate wind could be if it's all we had. -- Ian |
#54
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 29/10/2014 15:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bill wrote: In message , Davey writes On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:33:42 +0000 bert ] wrote: Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...Wind-farms-can -never-be-relied-upon-to-deliver-UK-energy-security.html "Wind farms can never be relied upon to keep the lights on in Britain because there are long periods each winter in which they produce barely any power, according to a new report by the Adam Smith Institute." Anyone with an ounce of engineering knowledge could have told them that years ago. You don't even need engineering knowledge to realise that the wind is not constant! On how many summer evenings has it dropped to nothing an hour or so before sunset, just when folks are turning their lights on? You have to wonder, indeed. I wonder why people have to keep using this argument to knock wind generation. It was never intended as a total replacement for other forms of power generation, but as a top up when available, therefore reducing the amount of coal, gas, nuclear used. Wind only makes sense if you could use it in such a way that its variable availability was not an issue. So, putting energy into storage, frick zample. Batteries you can forget for the time being, and perhaps for ever. What else could usefully be done? Pumped storage? Not to any meaningful degree unless you feel like flooding (say) a number of Welsh valleys. Generation of H2 or hydrocarbons? What's the efficiency of these sorts of schemes? Compressed air storage, (with or without liquification and heat recovery). Electrical generation used on site for electrolysing water to produce and store hydrogen. Atmospheric carbon sequestration to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. Mostly all hideously expensive and / or inefficient... Note: the above applies AFAIK to any of the renewable sources: the basic issue is that if you *have* to use the energy as it's generated, then you are always building two power stations to get the output of one. Yup getting away from the need to consume and generate in lock step symphony would open up loads of options. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#55
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 30/10/2014 17:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
Are you missing my point? What I was getting at was "Based on ongoing experience of how little a contribution wind can sometimes make, (hypothetically) how many wind turbines would it take to have a fair chance of meeting our full-load demand?" I'm know this is not a realistic goal, but it might show up how totally inadequate wind could be if it's all we had. What's a fair chance? One day per year without electricity a year or more? At a rough guesstimate a million 1 megawatt (the 60 metre ones)turbines would probably supply enough electricity for all but about 30 days a year. |
#56
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:38:27 +0000, bert ] wrote: And Germany is now building more coal fired plant. Quite. And of the most polluting sort. Well, brown coal *with* FGDS, and weren't they looking at CCS too? |
#57
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In message , Ian Jackson
writes In message , John Rumm writes On 29/10/2014 23:50, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , bert ] writes Because as has been explained many times the two principle ones available are intermittent. There is nothing on the horizon that come remotely near to being capable of producing the levels of energy required and there is nothing on the horizon in terms of storing significant amounts of electrical energy. So no matter how many windmills or solar farms you build you still need equivalent back up in reliable constantly available power and if that back up is nuclear, whose operation is very green, then having built it you may as well run it 24/7 and so building all the windmills and solar farms in the first place is rendered pointless. Simples Assuming that the wind WAS actually blowing at least a little somewhere in the UK, how many wind turbines would we need to ensure that they could provide 100% of our needs? Depends on what you mean by "a little". There are times the output from all of them is zero (rare), plenty of times when its under 5%. Taken across the year the load factor is somewhere between 25% and 30% With enough dispatchable CCGT generating capacity we could probably balance the grid with perhaps 50% more notional installed capacity than we currently have. Any more capacity than that would be pointless really. Furthermore, if the wind happened to be blowing fitfully everywhere in the UK, how much excess power would they be capable of generating? With what we currently have, they could in theory reach about 25% of demand - depending on time of day / year. Are you missing my point? What I was getting at was "Based on ongoing experience of how little a contribution wind can sometimes make, (hypothetically) how many wind turbines would it take to have a fair chance of meeting our full-load demand?" I'm know this is not a realistic goal, but it might show up how totally inadequate wind could be if it's all we had. I thought it had been made blatantly obvious several times over just how inadequate wind is as a source of electrical energy for the national grid. I've nothing against individuals using wind for their own personal use except that I strongly object to me subsidising what one farmer claimed recently was a "reasonable" return of 16%+ return on his investment. -- bert |
#58
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:11:00 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:
And Germany is now building more coal fired plant. Quite. And of the most polluting sort. Well, brown coal *with* FGDS, I guess you mean the new plants but that's still an awful lot of fossil CO2 being shoved into the atmosphere that the switched off nukes wouldn't have done. Do the old coal plants have FGDS? ... and weren't they looking at CCS too? There seem to have been quite a few goes at CCS an quite a few have not survived... -- Cheers Dave. |
#59
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Do the old coal plants have FGDS? Largely it seems they do, I looked up eight of their big lignite stations, they seem to have been modernised in late 90s onwards, old units retired, new more powerful units added, FDG scrubbers added, it got kind of boring finding the same story for each of them ... ... and weren't they looking at CCS too? There seem to have been quite a few goes at CCS an quite a few have not survived... They seem to be edging past "pilot" to "first commercial scale" ... |
#60
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:48:53 +0000
bert ] wrote: In message , Ian Jackson writes In message , John Rumm writes On 29/10/2014 23:50, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , bert ] writes Because as has been explained many times the two principle ones available are intermittent. snip Are you missing my point? What I was getting at was "Based on ongoing experience of how little a contribution wind can sometimes make, (hypothetically) how many wind turbines would it take to have a fair chance of meeting our full-load demand?" I'm know this is not a realistic goal, but it might show up how totally inadequate wind could be if it's all we had. I thought it had been made blatantly obvious several times over just how inadequate wind is as a source of electrical energy for the national grid. I've nothing against individuals using wind for their own personal use except that I strongly object to me subsidising what one farmer claimed recently was a "reasonable" return of 16%+ return on his investment. Exactly. Reasonable for him, but not for me or you. -- Davey. |
#61
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Chris Hogg posted
AIUI it happens all the time; that's how they balance supply and demand on the grid ATM, within certain limits, until they reach a point when they can disconnect a generating unit completely or add one in, as necessary. But the key question is whether running a generator at 90% generating capacity actually saves 10% of the fuel and only produces 90% of the CO2. I don't know, but I have the impression that it's not that simple, and that you actually only save between 3 and 5% of the fuel. [Let's assume for the sake of this argument that saving fossil fuel and reducing CO2 emissions is good.] Then, even if switching the grid to 5% wind power only allows you to save 1% of fuel/CO2, it would be worth doing, because the wind power is free. Once you have installed it, of course; if you start adding in the carbon cost of building it, then the numbers are doubtless different. I'm not saying I am committed to this argument, just that it can't simply be waved away. -- Les |
#62
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: In article , Chris Hogg wrote: Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the whole renewable thing is moot anyway. Quite. So build nuclear. And so far I've not seen a single response from the likes of Adrian, Dave Plowman, or harry to suggest a viable alternative. Their approach appears to be that renewable is good so we should build it, end of. And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be. Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea - as history has proved. Time and time again. And nuclear at the moment relies on imported raw materials. In no way do I claim to be any kind of an expert. The problem is that those offering all the solutions ain't either. -- *Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#63
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be. Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea - as history has proved. Time and time again. And nuclear at the moment relies on imported raw materials. So your viable alternative is *what*, then? Hedge your bets and use a mixture. -- *Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#64
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , Chris Hogg wrote: Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the whole renewable thing is moot anyway. Quite. So build nuclear. And so far I've not seen a single response from the likes of Adrian, Dave Plowman, or harry to suggest a viable alternative. Their approach appears to be that renewable is good so we should build it, end of. And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be. Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea - as history has proved. Time and time again. And nuclear at the moment relies on imported raw materials. In no way do I claim to be any kind of an expert. ...And it shows The problem is that those offering all the solutions ain't either. Bu they are a damn sight more expert than you. -- bert |
#65
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 31/10/2014 17:30, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:02:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , Chris Hogg wrote: Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the whole renewable thing is moot anyway. Quite. So build nuclear. And so far I've not seen a single response from the likes of Adrian, Dave Plowman, or harry to suggest a viable alternative. Their approach appears to be that renewable is good so we should build it, end of. And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be. Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea - as history has proved. Time and time again. Cue fracking for gas? And nuclear at the moment relies on imported raw materials. I had a brief discussion with Java Jive recently over on uk.tech.digital-tv on the availability of future supplies of uranium fuel for nuclear power stations. He was of the view, based on the last graph here http://tinyurl.com/n2sf4pp that uranium was going to be in short supply in a few years time, and that the suggestion that nuclear would solve all our problems, was ill-founded. We didn't agree. Indeed, and he has made similar claims here. However this prediction is based on the assumption that we continue to use new uranium in a single pass through a reactor, and then consider what is left as "waste" (even though 98.5% of the fissile fuel content still remains). For the moment this is the most cost effective process given the cost of reprocessing and the general non availability of other reactor technologies that could use this "waste" as a viable fuel. With appropriate reactors (fast breeder, liquid fluoride fuel cycle, It also ignores the fact that thorium is a far more abundant element than uranium - and there are stockpiles of that sat around the world that people can't even give away at the moment (its considered a hazardous waste product produced in any rare earth element mining operation). Add to that the stockpiles of weapons grade fissile material we have on hand as a result of decommissioning projects and we have -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#66
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In article ,
bert ] wrote: In no way do I claim to be any kind of an expert. ..And it shows The problem is that those offering all the solutions ain't either. Bu they are a damn sight more expert than you. But still resort to making things up. Hardly a definition of expert. -- *Great groups from little icons grow * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#67
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 31/10/2014 13:51, Big Les Wade wrote:
[Let's assume for the sake of this argument that saving fossil fuel and reducing CO2 emissions is good.] Then, even if switching the grid to 5% wind power only allows you to save 1% of fuel/CO2, it would be worth doing, because the wind power is free. Once you have installed it, of course; if you start adding in the carbon cost of building it, then the numbers are doubtless different. I'm not saying I am committed to this argument, just that it can't simply be waved away. Trouble is the carbon cost of wind isn't zero. There's no fuel cost, but a substantial build cost. The turbines tend to be made of oil-based synthetics, and there's a lot of concrete too. Andy |
#68
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
In article ,
Chris Hogg writes: I had a brief discussion with Java Jive recently over on uk.tech.digital-tv on the availability of future supplies of uranium fuel for nuclear power stations. He was of the view, based on the last graph here http://tinyurl.com/n2sf4pp that uranium was going to be in short supply in a few years time, and that the suggestion that nuclear would solve all our problems, was ill-founded. We didn't agree. Uranium can be extracted from seawater. The cost is somewhere around 3-10 times the cost of mining, it but since the fuel is an almost insignificant part of the cost of nuclear electricity, that doesn't really matter. There's enough there for well over 10,000 years of use, although it won't all be viable to recover. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#69
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 31/10/2014 20:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John Rumm wrote: With appropriate reactors (fast breeder, liquid fluoride fuel cycle, Add to that the stockpiles of weapons grade fissile material we have on hand as a result of decommissioning projects and we have You suffering from bitrot? More likely too many interruptions between starting and finishing that post ;-) Still you probably got the basic idea - it was going to continue with WAMSR etc. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#70
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 31/10/2014 21:45, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/10/2014 13:51, Big Les Wade wrote: [Let's assume for the sake of this argument that saving fossil fuel and reducing CO2 emissions is good.] Then, even if switching the grid to 5% wind power only allows you to save 1% of fuel/CO2, it would be worth doing, because the wind power is free. Once you have installed it, of course; if you start adding in the carbon cost of building it, then the numbers are doubtless different. I'm not saying I am committed to this argument, just that it can't simply be waved away. Trouble is the carbon cost of wind isn't zero. There's no fuel cost, but a substantial build cost. The turbines tend to be made of oil-based synthetics, and there's a lot of concrete too. One could also mention the "radioactive waste" ;-) (i.e. turbines use large quantities of rare earth materials in their construction, and hence by implication have resulted in yet more throium being dug up) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#71
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Chris Hogg posted
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:51:52 +0000, Big Les Wade wrote: Chris Hogg posted AIUI it happens all the time; that's how they balance supply and demand on the grid ATM, within certain limits, until they reach a point when they can disconnect a generating unit completely or add one in, as necessary. But the key question is whether running a generator at 90% generating capacity actually saves 10% of the fuel and only produces 90% of the CO2. I don't know, but I have the impression that it's not that simple, and that you actually only save between 3 and 5% of the fuel. [Let's assume for the sake of this argument that saving fossil fuel and reducing CO2 emissions is good.] Then, even if switching the grid to 5% wind power only allows you to save 1% of fuel/CO2, it would be worth doing, because the wind power is free. Once you have installed it, of course; if you start adding in the carbon cost of building it, then the numbers are doubtless different. I'm not saying I am committed to this argument, just that it can't simply be waved away. What you're describing is more-or-less what we have now, and yes, it may save a little CO2, although probably not as much as the pro-wind-farm lobby would have us believe. Is it worth doing? I don't know. I guess it depends on one's definition of 'worth' in this context. I would say rather that it depends on the numbers, which you admit you don't know. One thing's for su if global warming is real, and CO2 is a major contributor, then making small savings are only going to make small differences, where big differences will be what's wanted. But many small differences can add up to a big difference. The greenies' case for wind power is not that it will solve the entire problem but that it will make a contribution. You'll never get big differences by installing wind power (or any other form of intermittent generation, for that matter), simply because of the equivalent in energy of back-up generators that you need and the CO2 that they emit while hot-spinning on stand-by. That might be true, but to be sure of it you'd need to know all the relevant numbers. If someone came up with an economic means of storing energy efficiently and on a truly massive scale, things might be different. But as I said before, why not just build nuclear? No CO2, steady base-load output with no fluctuations due to vagaries in the weather, small footprint, long working life and low fuel costs. Because of the problem of disposing of spent fuel. It is very well for pro-nuclear people to say oh that isn't really a problem. But it *is* a problem as long as there is no political agreement on how to do it. -- Les |
#72
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Chris Hogg posted
All I can say is 'read this': http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf Very interesting. Thank you. It confirms much of what I already believed without doing any sums. But let me just note that the author admits he doesn't know the answer to the substantive point we have been discussing here, namely whether adding renewable generating plant to the grid will save fossil fuel. See pages 11-12: "Overall, is the gain in average electricity generated by intermittent renewables greater than the losses incurred in dealing with their intermittency? And the answer is: No-one really knows ... This is a really nasty problem, one that has occupied me for several years, and essentially I have found no complete answer to it." However, on p15 he suggests that adding renewable plant *does* save fuel: "It seems that mostly efficiency [of conventional power stations] is well preserved until quite low power output levels are reached. This leads to one reasonably important conclusion. That intermittent renewable energy on a grid (that does not increase spinning reserve requirements) will not increase fuel burn per unit generated too much. Although it does increase it somewhat." and on p17 "the balance of probabilities is that renewable energy of the intermittent kind probably does result in a net reduction of fuel used." and p27 "When stripped back to its core concept - that it saves some fuel - we can see that although this is largely true in low penetration, it is less so as renewable capacity increases". -- Les |
#73
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote Chris Hogg wrote Well, yes, but if you accept that nuclear is the way to go then the whole renewable thing is moot anyway. Quite. So build nuclear. And so far I've not seen a single response from the likes of Adrian, Dave Plowman, or harry to suggest a viable alternative. Their approach appears to be that renewable is good so we should build it, end of. And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be. Sure, but both are irrelevant. Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea Bull**** when it doesn’t have to be imported much with nuclear. - as history has proved. Time and time again. History has done no such thing with the sort of import that nuclear involves. And nuclear at the moment relies on imported raw materials. And its available from enough sources that the fact that its an import is neither hear nor there given that it’s a very small part of the cost of a nuke system. Its clearly worked fine for France regardless of that theoretical downside which isnt real. In no way do I claim to be any kind of an expert. Just as well. The problem is that those offering all the solutions ain't either. Bull**** with nukes. |
#74
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote And some here think the status quo is just fine and always will be. Relying on any form of energy which is imported is simply not a good idea - as history has proved. Time and time again. And nuclear at the moment relies on imported raw materials. So your viable alternative is *what*, then? Hedge your bets and use a mixture. If you do want to do that, a mixture of coal and nukes makes a lot more sense than a mixture of say nukes and wind and solar. And the French have clearly done fine without hedging their bets. And have ended up with BY FAR the best power system in the entire world if you don’t count coal because of the CO2 produced by that. |
#75
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Penny Finally Beginning To Drop
On 02/11/2014 01:25, John Rumm wrote:
One could also mention the "radioactive waste" ;-) (i.e. turbines use large quantities of rare earth materials in their construction, and hence by implication have resulted in yet more throium being dug up) Well, _I_ have a suspicion it's going to be useful in a few years. The supporters of these devices do, in general, have a different opinion. Andy |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Penny floor | Home Repair | |||
What Is A Penny Worth? | Home Repair | |||
OT Did You Know It Costs More Than a Penny to Make a Penny? | Home Repair | |||
Leave A Penny, Leave Another Penny | Woodworking | |||
Penny in a Urinal | Home Repair |