New easy to install DIY solar panels technology

[Dave Liquorice]

Stuck for words Mary? Not like you. B-)

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:59:46 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-

We could do the same for all forms of electricity generation. Then when the coal conveyor at Longannet failed those who had opted for the coal tariff would have found their lights going out, unless they happened to live close enough to Cockenzie to be counted as being supplied by it. I am assuming that Cockenzie was operating at the time and was able to increase output a bit in the short term.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:02:51 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-

I was told last year that Scottish Water is the second largest consumer of Electricity in the country. I can believe it, though they do seem to use gravity whenever possible.

Of course they can decide to purchase some or all of the electricity from renewable sources

[Mary Fisher]

You're making assumptions :-)

Mary

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Do they? Seem not to on their website. And what google comes up with is a very mixed bag. As I have said before it seems the dominant element in load factor is wind (or lack of it). The Western Isles are a particularly favoured location although it seems Shetland is even better and perhaps a wind farm on Rockall or closer to home on St Kilda would be better still. Shame it isn't an economic proposition to ship in energy from the far flung locations.

The average capacity factor for UK onshore wind farms actually fell for a period after 1998 and still hadn't struggled back to 1998 levels in

2004. That is partly due to the decline in mean wind speed over the period but must also be partly do to the continued building of wind farms in unfavourable locations.

"Conclusions The regional onshore wind capacity factors in the UK between 1998 and

2004 ranged from 19 per cent in one of the least windy regions in a year when the wind speed index was low, to 40 per cent in one of the most windy regions in a year when the wind speed index was high, with the overall UK average being 29 per cent. The quality of the data varies over this period but with ROCs data available from 2003 the quality and consistency of the data improved from this point. Using figures from both NFFO and ROCs data streams increases the data coverage/capture and means this analysis encompasses all wind farms in the UK. The correlation between average UK wind speed and capacity factor in any given year is good with an R2 value of 0.91."

But don't forget:

"Only aggregated figures can be released publicly under the confidentiality requirements of ?National Statistics?. Therefore, where there were only 1 or 2 wind farms in operation within a particular region, data for these regions were excluded; eg the South East is not reported. These regional capacity factors were calculated using the total capacity and generation within each region."

More smoke and mirrors.

Load factor is a different issue to the amount of backup required for a variable source.

One only has to look at the point above that I have just responded to to see why I don't trust you.

They can read the section I quoted for that. No need to bogged down in the waffle.

[geoff]

In message , Matt writes

So did we, a couple of weeks ago

[Clot]

I'm all for wind turbines as a part of the mix, but they can only be that. We do experience periods when anticyclonic weather affects large parts of the UK at one time.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:31:55 GMT someone who may be "Clot" wrote this:-

============================================================================

Winter anticyclones

These, it is alleged, frequently becalm the whole country and cause problems for the system operator, due to the absence of any wind power, especially at periods of peak demand. The capacity credit, it is argued, is therefore zero. However, the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford was quite clear when appearing before a House of Lords Select Committee [12]:

"We have looked at that [stationary anticyclones in the middle of winter over the British Isles] occurring in the wind data and the wind data does not show it."

Several authors, including National Wind Power, have also found that peak demand periods actually tend to coincide with above-average wind plant output [13]. The reason for this is that wind output will tend to be correlated to periods of high peak demand, as one of the key factors in determining the load on the electricity system is wind speed. Cold, windy days will lead to increased demand for heating.

============================================================================

Full report, Annex B.

[Roger]

The message from "Clot" contains these words:

I am not against renewable energy per se, rather the reverse in fact. It is just that I don't think wind energy is the way to go. Unreliable, unsightly and overly expensive for what we get. Not characteristics that automatically elevate it to the top of the preferred option list.

Unlike TNP I am in favour of the Severn Barrage. It is claimed that this alone could produce 10% of UK electricity demand and while that too would be intermittent it would, within the limits of neap to spring tides, be as absolutely dependable as any available, and, together with a limited number of other sites spread round the coast, could satisfy the bulk of the electricity demand 24/7.

[The Natural Philosopher]

10% of 30% is still only 3% of the total energy consumed by this country.

That is a VERY high price to pay - the complete destruction of a unique ecosystem - for 3%.

My position is predicated on the assumption that we have to move almost entirely away from fossil fuels for everything, *transport included*.

The development of suitable batteries means this is a practical proposition for the first time ever.

And that energy savings of the order of 60% or more are simply not achievable socially, economically and politically.

The windmill lobby are still pissing in the wind when it comes to the real issues of secure, low carbon, national energy supply. As is Kyoto.

Nuclear technology has world wide appeal: one off projects that work with a singular feature of one countries geography by and large do not.

Its going to be bad enough transporting effectively 3x the current level of electricity around a supergrid..let alone damming the severn..in terms of impact.

John Hutton's statement to the FT yesterday bears this out.

----------------

Britain on nuclear power fast-track By Jean Eaglesham, Chief Political Correspondent Published: March 6 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 6 2008 02:00

The UK's reliance on nuclear power will increase "significantly" over the next two decades, the business secretary said yesterday as he set out an expansive vision of the country's atomic future.

John Hutton told the Financial Times he expected the new generation of nuclear power stations the government wants to see built to supply much more of the country's electricity than the 19 per cent the existing ones deliver.

Mr Hutton also dropped the government's previous commitment to maintaining a minimum 29.9 per cent stake in British Energy, the nuclear generator.

Ministers have refused to be drawn on the scale of investment in new nuclear reactors they hope to attract to the UK, saying it is for the market to decide.

But Mr Hutton made it clear the government would pull out all the stops to maximise the expansion of nuclear power.

"We need the maximum contribution from nuclear sources in the next 10 to

15 years," Mr Hutton said. Asked if the government wanted the share of electricity generated from nuclear to increase beyond 19 per cent, he replied: "That's the ambition we should have . . . I'd be very disappointed if it's not significantly above the current level."

Replacing the UK's aging stock of reactors is seen as vital to achieving the government's targets on cutting carbon emissions and reducing dependence on imported gas.

After nearly a decade of indecision over the move to support a new generation of nuclear reactors, the government is now determined to fast-track the replacement of the 10 stations, all but one of which is due to close by 2023. The first plant could be operational by 2017, a year ahead of the target set in a white paper in January, Mr Hutton said.

"If we can accelerate the timescale, we should," he said. "We've got to be completely serious about this . . . we should keep our foot down on the pedal."

The government may sell its £2bn-plus stake in British Energy, Mr Hutton suggested, with a decision "in the next few years". Ministers have previously said they will not sell down the state's 39 per cent stake in Britain's biggest electricity producer below 29.9 per cent.

"We have to consider for the medium term what view we should take about holding on to these shares," Mr Hutton said. The government was "clear that we don't want the taxpayers to be involved in new nuclear investment".

According to Mr Hutton, investors are queuing up for the multi-billion pound construction programme, on the proviso that the government meets its commitment to "clear the decks" of regulatory obstacles.

"We're in exactly the right place, I've been very encouraged by the reaction [from investors]," he said. "It's completely confounded all those people who said 'it's not going to happen' - it's going to happen and in a shorter timescale than our critics predicted."

[Clot]

I'm surprised at this. I wonder how the stats were pulled together. Thanks for the link. When I've a bit more time I'll read that.

[Roger]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

What is unique about it and why do you think it would be completely destroyed.

I think you have been listening too much to the greenies. The only thing likely to disappear completely is the Severn Bore and even that isn't entirely certain.

I don't know where I got the 10% from. The most widely used figure seems to be 5%.

Whenever I do an internet search these days Wikipedia always seems to come close to the top. I don't know how biased their entry on the Severn Barrage is but a look at who is backing the project and who is opposing it may be significant.

In one corner assorted politicians plus James Lovelock. In the other mostly the massed (but thin) ranks of the green persuasion plus Lord Sainsbury.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It is IIRC the HIGHEST tidal range estuary in the world..thats pretty unique.

In order yo extract power you need to essentially completely alter the tidal flow through it.

That is going to lead to a radical change in silt deposition and tidal scouring..on a level that is probably impossible to predict.

It would also - depending on where it is - cause significant shipping access problems.

Ther are a huge amount of unkopwns in it..enough to make me shy away from it completely froma isiness point of view.

I seldom listen to greenies. Its a bit like watching big brother. Or Copronation street. There is merely the sick fasciantion ofw atching the inevitable uselessness of people being consistently wrong about everything and making silly mistakes over and over again without learning from them.

Depebnd on how you extract the power.

Well thats even more pathetic. ;-)

It will fail on cost probably. Given the choice between investing a fairly stable and predictable amount in a nuclear power station whose impact is low and known, and whose costs and output are withing limits very predictable, and a Severn barrage, whose planning would be uncertain, whose costs are essentially almost completely unknown, and whose actual operational efficiency is also a complete unknown, no one is going to put billions into it unless its not their money.

I would NOT especially eel comfortable about investing in anything that has to run for years ins a salt water environment..'we've had to pull up all the turbines to cook the limpets and cockles off them sir'

yeah right..

I cannot off hand think of ONE commercially successful operating tidal power project. Tho ISTR plenty of 'pilot ones' that never seemed to attract large scale investment.

There is always a huge risk in doing a 'first' - look at the Chunnel. Hardly able to pay its interest payments, let alone make any money for its investors..

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:06:04 GMT someone who may be "Clot" wrote this:-

That report is a good summary of the overall position at the time.

You can download the report on the weather data work from

In essence they looked at weather records going back to the 1970s and then compared them the cut in and cut out speeds of wind turbines. There has been no convincing attack which undermines the work, though the usual suspects have tried.

[The Natural Philosopher]

it all works reaosanbly well when wind turbines are an insignificant fraction of total capacity, and falls apart if they get to be significant, when if one area of the countr is becalmed, for sure other areas wont be, but the net flow of power from where its being produced - e.g. Scotland - to where its being used - e.g. London would make for a massively and unnecessarily over specified infrastructure with respect to the alternatives.

In short the most efficient thing is to generate where you use. Moving power around uses power. and involves a lot of materials and capital costs. All conveniently ignored by the likes of Dynamo Hansen and his ilk.After all if the government subsides the power you generate and the grid is required to take it wherever you deliver it, its Not Your Problem is it?

Sadly people who need access to power do not tend to inhabit the wild desolate windswept reaches of our country, or indeed the North sea.;-)

Windmills are probably fine to generate up to about 10% of the electricity at no more than 2-3 times the cost of any competing technology. Beyond that they really have no place at all.

[Roger]

The message from "Clot" contains these words:

Now who was it who said there were lies, damned lies and statistics?

Disinterested information in this area is hard to come by and may not even exist.

Sinden has an Agenda but I can't trace the original report to see if the inserted "[stationary anticyclones in the middle of winter over the British Isles]" above genuinely reflects his views or is a gross distortion of the gross distortion in the paragraph above.

Anyone who takes much notice of our weather must know we do from time to time have high pressure centred over the British Isles and some of these occur in winter. So how to get round acknowledging it.

"Middle of winter" - 5th Feb or whatever particular day you chose for middle of winter might just have escaped during the year(s) covered by the data.

"stationary anticyclones" - scope here for being ruled out either for being only one in a year or more likely by a pedantic view of stationary. Weather is dynamic and even blocking highs are never totally stationary.

"occurring in the wind data" - a single years data chosen on the basis of, exceptionally, no blocking high.

The first paragraph quoted above by Hansen is a classic, full of strawmen.

Alleged - nothing like casting a little doubt

Frequently - well if nothing else get them on numbers

Becalm the whole country - From Scilly to Shetland, Channel Isles to Northern Ireland. I would be surprised if a windless high ever came close to that huge area.

Capacity credit not zero - possibly not but not very much at all is still not zero.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I take a lot of notice of the wind, as it directly affects one of my hobbies. Model aircraft.

Its fairly true to say that there are only maybe a dozen days a year in which widespread winds below 8mph are to be found. But they do happen. I treasure them, Its flying weather or the smaller stuff.

Conversely days when teh wind is ubiquitously high, and sustained above

20mph are also very rere - at least inshore.

its also rare to see winds uniformly low across the isles..generally a ridge or anticyclone is only a 100 miles across at its low wind core part..so different parts of the country aare almost always experiencinng dfferent winds.

At the moment there is a weak ridge of high pressure across the isles between two frontal systems

Wind is westerly and between 10mph and 20mph across the broad area of the isles. So windfarms probably would operate at around 50% of capacity. less in the south, more in the north and offshore.

Now tomorrow/saturday its predicted that wind speeds may ouble. Suppose we were 780% windfarms..what to do?

Do we build to peak capacity and infill with expensive gas turbines for when the wind is less? or do we build in 6-10 times as much capacity as we need, so that on overall low wind speed days we can still power the whole grid?

Its not a question of the AVERAGE load factor. Its a question of the worst case load factor without having power cuts. I.e. what to do if the whole country is not operating at 30%, but at say 10%..the more you use windpower the worse it gets.

And then what to do with all the excess capacity on really quite breezy days? it cannot be stored..easily or cheaply..

To rely on them for a large proportion of the power generation would mean transferring something like 50% of the power used in the country at any given time between the north and the south.

This is not trivial. If we were to go over to wind power on a grand scale,this would require extremely expensive and sophisticated power management strategies and a much larger grid infrastructure. There are signs that this is already and issue in Denmark, where the effective limits of wind generation are being reached.

The FACTS would seem to be that beyond maybe 20%, hidden wind power costs* start to escalate: It's already at least twice as expensive as competing technologies..

The FACT is that its only 'economic'** to use windmills whilst there is a massive subsidy on them, and they don't get to be a very large part of the overall generating capacity.

• larger redundant infrastructure, need to build short up/down time gas turbine plant to cope with fluctuations, or need to build in massive overcapacity fir calm days.. need for more careful power management strategies..

** if by economic you mean 'profitable at the taxpayers expense'.

[Roger]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

snip

snip

If the greenies get their way over the Severn barrage they will be in a stronger position in their stance over nuclear and the greenies are now arguing that nuclear is incompatible with wind power as it generates electricity in large chunks which are each either off or flat out.

[Roger]

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

Doesn't much help if you are looking for actual figures. Scaling off the graph appears to show that as much as 60% of the UK would have had insufficient wind to turn a turbine for 5% of the time and nothing at all is said about the feeble nature of the wind in the rest of the UK when that is the case. 5% is some 18 days and if the 1 year/5 year summe/ winter ratio holds there is still approaching 100 hours of winter generating time when over half the country wouldn't have a single turbine turning.

[Roger]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

2nd highest I think but from the pedantic point of view pretty unique is in the same class as slightly pregnant. It is a singular situation, not a range, and I wouldn't have it applying to a tidal range unless there was only the one.

The current proposal appears to envisage losing the mudflats from half tide outwards.

That sort of thing is carefully modelled these days, possibly even on computers, although I would be happier if they stuck to real modelling rather than relying on virtual modelling. Changes in silting patterns can be advantageous in some cases.

A good many ports are served through locks. It is not the end of the world and it does have some advantages.

No real unknown unkowns (to quote Rumsfield).

I don't have the stomach for either of them.

I might need a rethink on that. The Sinden report that Hanson quoted compared 10% to 5.3 GW of conventional generator capacity and 13 GW of Wind generator capacity. Wikipedia (again) gives the maximum output of the 3 most promising lines for the Severn Barrage as 1 GW, 8 GW and 15 GW but enough information to complete the picture is not given at the same place but a recent scheme was predicted to give 8.64 GW max, 2 GW average and be 6% overall so 15GW probably does match the 10% I quoted earlier.

I suspect that is more an issue with off shore wind power.

The Frogs have been running one sucessfully for years.

If the ferry operators had been competing for business (and hence not had outrageous margins) before the advent of the Chunnel the Chunnel would had been a success at least until the tax favoured budget airlines got in on the act.