http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7991326.html

I've got my popcorn ready

tim

On 10/10/2017 21:39, tim... wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7991326.html


I've got my popcorn ready

tim




And just after it is completed, and the world is reliant on it, we have
a once in a thousand year storm event which wipes it all out.

A quick Google suggests that the writers of this article have
underestimated the wave height by at least x10 for storms or for
recorded freak/rouge waves.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 21:40:50 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7991326.html

I've got my popcorn ready

tim

quote...

Derek Colman

I have a better idea. If we attach billions of hamster wheels to tiny generators over an area the size of Africa, they could power the entire world. They would have the great advantage of not needing scarce rare earth minerals. They would be more sustainable because they can be made of wood which is renewable. The only disadvantage I can see is that I might end up in the same lunatic asylum as the guys who thought this one up.

On 10/10/2017 21:39, tim... wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7991326.html


I've got my popcorn ready

tim



"10 photographs to show to anyone who doesn't believe in climate change"
They don't show anything that proves anthropomorphic climate change.
Total greeny nonsense.

Bill

alan_m wrote:
A quick Google suggests that the writers of this article have
underestimated the wave height by at least x10 for storms or for
recorded freak/rouge waves.

Are those rouge waves ones that come from Russia?

--
Chris Green
·

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:54:13 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

alan_m wrote:
A quick Google suggests that the writers of this article have
underestimated the wave height by at least x10 for storms or for
recorded freak/rouge waves.

Are those rouge waves ones that come from Russia?

I red that as...!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 10-Oct-17 10:22 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 10/10/2017 21:39, tim... wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7991326.html


I've got my popcorn ready

tim




And just after it is completed, and the world is reliant on it, we have
a once in a thousand year storm event which wipes it all out.

Quote:

"A giant wind farm in the North Atlantic would have to operate in €œremote and harsh conditions€� with wave heights frequently exceeding three metres (9.8ft)"

A quick Google suggests that the writers of this article have
underestimated the wave height by at least x10 for storms or for
recorded freak/rouge waves.

Satellite measurements show that waves in the range 20-30m are not
uncommon in open waters.

--
--

Colin Bignell

I'm just wondering why nobody has used the column of water and pumping
something with its rise and fall type of power generation. It would not
matter what direction the pressure waves came from but would need a very big
column in a hostile see to make it viable.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2017 21:39, tim... wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7991326.html
I've got my popcorn ready

tim




And just after it is completed, and the world is reliant on it, we have a
once in a thousand year storm event which wipes it all out.

Quote:

"A giant wind farm in the North Atlantic would have to operate in "remote and harsh conditions" with wave heights frequently exceeding three metres (9.8ft)"

A quick Google suggests that the writers of this article have
underestimated the wave height by at least x10 for storms or for recorded
freak/rouge waves.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Brian Gaff presented the following explanation :
I'm just wondering why nobody has used the column of water and pumping
something with its rise and fall type of power generation. It would not
matter what direction the pressure waves came from but would need a very big
column in a hostile see to make it viable.
Brian

I suspect the constant and rapid reversal of the flow would make the
system very inefficient - just too rapid for the mechanicals to
respond.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:22:59 +0100, alan_m wrote:

A quick Google suggests that the writers of this article have
underestimated the wave height by at least x10 for storms or for
recorded freak/rouge waves.

I thought you only got those in the Red Sea.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 11/10/17 10:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Brian Gaff presented the following explanation :
I'm just wondering why nobody has used the column of water and pumping
something with its rise and fall type of power generation. It would
not matter what direction the pressure waves came from but would need
a very big column in a hostile see to make it viable.
Â*Brian

I suspect the constant and rapid reversal of the flow would make the
system very inefficient - just too rapid for the mechanicals to respond.

All renewable energy is chasing two issues, both of which are routinely
ignored


The first is related to energy density, and it is how big and costly a
structure you need to generate the power.

The second is the intermittency, how steady the power source is. Note
that *predictability* is no help. Knowing that 100GW of UK solar energy
will go offline at 8pm in summer doesnt mean you still dont have to deal
with it.

To get some idea of how it all works: Take an offshore windfarm of
plate capacity 2GW.

Its cost will be around the £6bn mark. With a life span of 20 years
probably. In order to deliver 2GW reliably to the consumer, it needs a
2GW cable connecting it to the grid (About another £0.5bn, cost borne by
te taxpayer via Natonal Grid charges in your bill) plus the cost of a
2GW gas power station whose output will be varied to ensure the
combination always delivers a reliable 2GW 24x7 even when the wind
doesn't blow - cost about £1.2bn

At a capacity factor of 30%, the addition of windmills to the gas power
staion represents a saving of around 15% in fuel costs (the gas power
station part load inefficiences and start stop losses will reduce the
theoretcical 30% to about half according to am Irish study).

So given that the windfarm would need to be replaced *three times* over
the 60 year service life of the gas power station we have

WITH WINDFARM ADDED - CCGT ALONE NUCLEAR ALONE
Capital costs* £19.7 bn £1.2 bn £19.7 bn
Fuel costs** £35.7 bn £42.0 bn £ 3.9 bn
O & M costs*** £0.97bn £0.06bn £ 0.97bn
Total costs £56.3 bn £43.26bn £24.57bn

So over 60 years adding a wind farm will knock £6.3bn off the gas bill,
at an extra capital and O & M cost of £20.67bn

Now if we add in cost of capital, assuming it isn't an interest free
loan from a subsidised Green Bank...

At 7.5% p.a. £0.727 bn £0.09bn £1.4475bn

So total cost £54 bn £43.35bn £26.0475 bn****

How much does this add to the fuel bill?

Over 60 years per unit cost
5.32p 4.27p 2.56p

Now if we look at the difference in price, that is 1.05p

But in that scenario wind only generates 30% of the total so the added
cost of the windpower - the TRUE cost of wind power - is 3.5p over and
above the gas price.

(WIND * 0.3 + GAS * 0.7 = 5.32)
( GAS = 4.27 )

So we can see that gas per unit wholesale is 4.27p, whereas te
opportunity cost of wind per unit is overall costing us 7.77p wholesale.

Nearly double.

Note that the cheaper gas is, the more expensive in comparison wind is.
And nuclear of course. Cheap gas and high interest rates are what
stopped nuclear in the 1980s

Note also, that rather a lot of the costs are borne by the consumer, and
the gas operator but *not by the windfarm operator*.


Note how cheap nuclear actually is. If you exclude insurance and
political uncertainty even at a ruinous price of £9bn per GW build +
teardown price.


I will leave the reader to work out how much carbon emissions were
reduced for all this added cost. And how much further they are reduced
with nuclear.


All the above to answer 'why don't we use.....some other renewable
technology'

Put all the above in a spreadsheet, and then look at the impact of
capital cost changes, capacity factor changes fuel cost changes and so on.


And add in wave power and or other potential renewable projects.

And you will see why ex of direct and massive subsidy they are all
stillborn.




* I have costed wind-farms at £3bn per GW and nuclear at a similar price
- Hinckley is capitalises at ‚¬21bn Euro to date for 3.2GW, so it's in
the ball park. Decommission is included.
** 4p a KWh, over 60 years. It's probably less than that. Nuclear cost
includes fuel reprocessing and disposal
*** O & M at around 5% of capital over 60 years.
**** Insurance against a nuclear accident is a moveable feast and
totally at the whim of government. It could add another £5-6bn.


I have not bothered with nuclear or gas downtime.


Note that I haven't spent more than a few minutes researching detailed
prices BUT the salient facts are wind as cheap as nuclear' if you look
at CAPITAL costs per wind-farm and ignore short lifetimes lower capacity
factors and the cost of backup. It is so easy to cherry pick one or
more rows and compare two entirely different things.

Note also that even at Hinckley build prices EDF are expecting a massive
premium.

Note that as gas prices rise, wind looks a better deal, but nuclear
looks way better.

Finally, this is a calculation I did in principle some years ago, and
which convinced me that no matter what stance you took on ecology and
green issues, shorn of prejudice nuclear was far and away the best bang
for the buck if you didn't want to rely on imported gas and wanted to
reduce emissions. In other words I was no particular fan of nuclear and
no particular enemy of renewables *until I did these calculations*.

I believe it was a calculation that the late David Mackay took to DECC
(I sent it to him) and is the reason why there was such a big push for
nuclear.

You can in principle extend such a spreadsheet to add in what hydro
exists, and to develop an optimal mix of generating technologies as DECC
used to do on their website IIRC.

A few passes myself had me convinced that the no brainer was to drop
intermittent renewables altogether, and go for a mix of coal and nuclear
baseload, gas doing load following, and hydro and pumped being used to
cover short term peaks or in the case of hydro, to make best use of
excessive rainfall.

As gas prices rise, the ratio of nuclear to gas should rise.

Note that the top ranked energy company in the world is Gazprom

http://uk.businessinsider.com/exxonm...7-10?r=US&IR=T

Note how little renewable addition affects gas consumption, but how much
nuclear does.

Note therefore how much Gazprom stands to lose if nuclear and local
fracking are developed in Europe.

Note that Greenpeace grew out of CND, a Russian state sponsored
anti-nuclear (weapons) site, and how that morphed into anti-nuclear
power station actions.

Note that Gazprom grew out of a state owned power company.

Note that Germany is the most anti-nuclear country in Europe.
Notre that Mrs Merkel worked for the East German communist state before
she became Germany's chancellor.




Well that is the best answer to Brian's question I can come up with.


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
it's been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 11/10/17 10:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Brian Gaff presented the following explanation :
I'm just wondering why nobody has used the column of water and pumping
something with its rise and fall type of power generation. It would not
matter what direction the pressure waves came from but would need a very
big column in a hostile see to make it viable.
Brian

I suspect the constant and rapid reversal of the flow would make the
system very inefficient - just too rapid for the mechanicals to respond.

All renewable energy is chasing two issues, both of which are routinely
ignored


The first is related to energy density, and it is how big and costly a
structure you need to generate the power.

The second is the intermittency, how steady the power source is. Note that
*predictability* is no help. Knowing that 100GW of UK solar energy will go
offline at 8pm in summer doesnt mean you still dont have to deal with it.

To get some idea of how it all works: Take an offshore windfarm of plate
capacity 2GW.

Its cost will be around the £6bn mark. With a life span of 20 years
probably.

I believe that you are being overly pessimistic, the turbines inside may
have a lifetime of 20 years, the structure that supports it significantly
more than that

the turbine inside does not represent a significant part of the build out
costs

the last time that I looked we don't routinely need to replace offshore
light houses every 20 years, they have a lifetime in hundreds. It would be
foolish in the extreme not to build offshore wind turbines the same way

tim

Brian Gaff wrote

I'm just wondering why nobody has used the column of water and pumping
something with its rise and fall type of power generation.

That’s what wave power generation does. Doesn’t work very well
at all and is very difficult to do in the deep ocean because it’s a
hell of a long way to the bottom for the anchors that are vital.

It would not matter what direction the pressure waves came from

Yes.

but would need a very big column in a hostile see to make it viable.

And that is only there in worst conditions. Which is one reason
why it’s one of the least useful ways of generating electricity.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/2017 21:39, tim... wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7991326.html
I've got my popcorn ready

tim




And just after it is completed, and the world is reliant on it, we have a
once in a thousand year storm event which wipes it all out.

Quote:

"A giant wind farm in the North Atlantic would have to operate in "remote and harsh conditions" with wave heights frequently exceeding three metres (9.8ft)"

A quick Google suggests that the writers of this article have
underestimated the wave height by at least x10 for storms or for recorded
freak/rouge waves.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:07:39 +0100
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

I'm just wondering why nobody has used the column of water and
pumping something with its rise and fall type of power generation. It
would not matter what direction the pressure waves came from but
would need a very big column in a hostile see to make it viable.

ISTR a system that used the air above a column of water to turn a
turbine.

Tim Streater wrote:

Chris Hogg wrote:

The Bishop Rock lighthouse, to the West of the Scillies and shown
above, is about 150 ft high and weighs a little short of 6,000
tons.

So have all the offshore turbines been built to that spec?
Somehow I doubt it
They're "grouted" into place a bit like the Deepwater Horizon pipework

https://theenergyst.com/offshore-wind-contract-dispute-settled/

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:27:09 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


I believe that you are being overly pessimistic, the turbines inside may
have a lifetime of 20 years, the structure that supports it significantly
more than that

the turbine inside does not represent a significant part of the build out
costs

the last time that I looked we don't routinely need to replace offshore
light houses every 20 years, they have a lifetime in hundreds. It would
be foolish in the extreme not to build offshore wind turbines the same
way

tim


What, with 6ft thick walls (10 ft on the lower courses) made of
granite blocks, individually cut and interlocking both laterally and
vertically? E.G. http://tinyurl.com/yafzrkqr The so-called 'rock
lighthouses' (so-named because they stood on isolated pinnacles of
rock several miles from the shore) relied on their weight for keeping
them in place, hence the use of very large amounts of stone. The
Bishop Rock lighthouse, to the West of the Scillies and shown above,
is about 150 ft high and weighs a little short of 6,000 tons. It can
get rough out there http://tinyurl.com/y8ghl2sj

So have all the offshore turbines been built to that spec? Somehow I
doubt it, dunno why.

It's not necessary to use 19th century building techniques to get the same
strength

If we did the 21st century tallest sky-scrapers would have walls on the
lower floors that occupied the complete footprint of the building to take
the weigh of all the floors above them

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Its cost will be around the £6bn mark. With a life span of 20 years
probably.

I believe that you are being overly pessimistic, the turbines inside may
have a lifetime of 20 years, the structure that supports it
significantly more than that

Turnip probably believes off shore wind farms are designed and built by
'greenies'. True engineers only design nuclear - hence us having to go
abroad for them. And of course nuclear power stations last forever.

--
*And the cardiologist' s diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:02:18 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:


I believe that you are being overly pessimistic, the turbines inside may
have a lifetime of 20 years, the structure that supports it significantly
more than that



Concrete telescopic lighthouses are popular these days, especially
when they are destined to stand on a sandy sea bed. The Kish Bank and
Royal Sovereign lighthouses are such. Big concentric concrete caissons
built onshore, then floated out to the prepared site, sunk, and the
centre telescopic sections raised hydraulically before being
permanently set in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_Bank and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_...ign_Lighthouse

Presumably the bases of offshore wind turbines are made of concrete,
but I assume the superstructure is steel, prone to corrosion if not
well maintained, especially in a salty environment. The lifetime of a
modern steel ship is around 20-30 years

Well maintained may well be the key point, the Nab Tower finally
needed major work done when it got to over 90 years old.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-36533115

Even some structures that have not been maintained have turned out
fairly resilient such as the wartime anti aircraft forts in the Thames
Estuary, You have the Army type ones such as Red Sands and Shivering
Sands https://www.flickr.com/photos/pawoodhead/2941455385
and the Navy type
https://www.flickr.com/photos/colmolaoi/13999424598

Still standing fairly well some 70 years after being built and being
abandoned after the war,
some were used by pirate radio stations but their budgets did not go
to any structural maintenance.
One that has seen some is the Rough Tower owned by the Bates family
who declared themselves an independent state back in the 60's a
situation they maintain and is tolerated to this day.
http://www.bobleroi.co.uk/ScrapBook/...IsSealand.html

Since they were built the offshore oil and gas industry has led to
many techniques and coatings to protect structures at sea some of
which has spilled over into other fields, The Forth Railway Bridge for
example now having a main coating supposedly good for 20 years before
major work will be needed again. No longer do a team of painters just
work back and forth.

A life of a ship is usually set by other factors than the corrosion of
the Hull exterior which is a fairly simple shape to keep coated.
Replacing worn out machinery and pipe work installed before a
couple of decks were placed on top can be so expensive it is more
economic to build a new vessel and get what you can by scrapping the
old one, and often it is corrosion from within that cause more damage
, a leaking pipe from the crews urinals may start off damage that
never really gets fully repaired due to awkward access or lack of crew
to do a proper timely fix.

G.Harman

On 12/10/17 13:02, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:37:00 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:27:09 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


I believe that you are being overly pessimistic, the turbines inside may
have a lifetime of 20 years, the structure that supports it significantly
more than that

the turbine inside does not represent a significant part of the build out
costs

the last time that I looked we don't routinely need to replace offshore
light houses every 20 years, they have a lifetime in hundreds. It would
be foolish in the extreme not to build offshore wind turbines the same
way

tim


What, with 6ft thick walls (10 ft on the lower courses) made of
granite blocks, individually cut and interlocking both laterally and
vertically? E.G. http://tinyurl.com/yafzrkqr The so-called 'rock
lighthouses' (so-named because they stood on isolated pinnacles of
rock several miles from the shore) relied on their weight for keeping
them in place, hence the use of very large amounts of stone. The
Bishop Rock lighthouse, to the West of the Scillies and shown above,
is about 150 ft high and weighs a little short of 6,000 tons. It can
get rough out there http://tinyurl.com/y8ghl2sj

So have all the offshore turbines been built to that spec? Somehow I
doubt it, dunno why.

It's not necessary to use 19th century building techniques to get the same
strength

If we did the 21st century tallest sky-scrapers would have walls on the
lower floors that occupied the complete footprint of the building to take
the weigh of all the floors above them

tim


Quite. But you did say, quote "It would be foolish in the extreme not
to build offshore wind turbines the same way" when referring to
offshore lighthouses that had been standing for over a hundred years.

:-)

Concrete telescopic lighthouses are popular these days, especially
when they are destined to stand on a sandy sea bed. The Kish Bank and
Royal Sovereign lighthouses are such. Big concentric concrete caissons
built onshore, then floated out to the prepared site, sunk, and the
centre telescopic sections raised hydraulically before being
permanently set in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_Bank and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_...ign_Lighthouse

Presumably the bases of offshore wind turbines are made of concrete,
but I assume the superstructure is steel, prone to corrosion if not
well maintained, especially in a salty environment. The lifetime of a
modern steel ship is around 20-30 years, about the same as TNP gave
for the lifetime of an offshore turbine.
http://www.shippipedia.com/life-cycle-of-a-ship/

It is likely they would be floating anyway. Just vaguely anchored to the
sea bed.




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.