OT: energy infrastructure

[Tim Streater]

In which case their article is deceitful.

[Paul]

The wind varies as a function of altitude.

And the neat part is, it doesn't even have to blow in the same direction, as down lower.

You can sometimes see this, complicated patterns on Doppler Radar for storm clouds, as weather systems cross.

The "cut-in" and "cut-out" speed of commercial wind turbines, is quite different than a spinner at ground level.

Commercial wind turbines, operate when there is a net positive output to the grid (the "cut-in" speed, where the brake is released and the blades unfurl). Smaller devices don't have refinements like that. The commercial wind turbine has a pressurized lubrication system, with an energy cost. If the brake is applied and the blades furled (to reduce forces on the tower), then the lubrication system doesn't have to run.

When the commercial wind turbines get up to 13MW output, and the nacelle is the size of a two storey house, there can be an active cooling system inside. The cut-in has to cover for the wasted energy to make it run.

Paul

[charles]

In article [e-mail]>,

[Snip]

[Snip]

There's also Cruachan in Scotland which has been running since 1965, Foyers which was converted to pumped storage. Cruachan is planned to have its capacity doubled and there are two further large schemes plannned in Scotland.

[John J]

There's a big FO battery been built near Beverley. Apparently it's going to solve all our problems by keeping the grid alive for about half an hour if local radio are to be believed.

[alan_m]

The only way to make it financially viable is to sell the output at the highest price when there is a shortage on the grid at peak demand times. It's not going to be a backup for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine nor is a viable solution for cheap energy.

[Paul]

Any method intended to replace the entire energy consumption of society, is going to look ridiculous. As a plan.

It would be nice if the plan had a "token start". For example, our SMR financing here, has resulted so far, in no shovels in the ground. It would seem, the company making the SMR, doesn't have an SMR in hand.

And as for the announcement in the plan, that there could be a "reduction in the quality of life", which the average citizen does not accept as such, the fact is, the quality of life has already changed. Nobody can afford a house. Nobody can afford to even rent an apartment. For example, a government employee who helps low income people find an apartment they can afford, she is sleeping in her car, because SHE can't afford an apartment. And, her income is a few thousand too much, to be helped by the program she works for. The notion that we have to "wait X years to see our quality of life change", no, it's already happening and for reasons other than the obvious.

Maybe the solution will be living in tents, and driving push bicycles. Morrisons, here I come :-) [That thing with the fan, is supposed to be self powered.]

Paul

[Pancho]

We have discussed this before. For wind and solar, we need seasonal storage, for winters. Hydrogen is the prime candidate. We could store huge amounts. It is a risky strategy, but I can't rule it out. I can't comment on economics. In the UK, the plan requires massive amounts of offshore wind power, probably floating.

Chris posted a couple of URLs that explain some of this.

[Pancho]

The problem is we know big nuclear works, but big building plans are a long term, and there is a concern that some cheaper technology may emerge. So politicians defer decision-making. They hope wind will work, even if they aren't sure how.

Rather than being a silver bullet, small modular reactors are enabling politicians to defer decision-making yet again.

We need to stump up the cash and build traditional power stations. Like defence spending, we might not need them, but we do need the security of having them if the worst comes to the worst.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It only goes to sjhow what utterely useless wankers all these woke lefties really are. They should be barred from having anything to do with technology

[with extra hardware and software] An APPLE II COULD PUT A MAN ON Yh MOON! [With free batteries made of unobtanium and Unicorn farts] RENEWABLE ENERGY COULD POWER BRITAIN!

[The Natural Philosopher]

and existed in sufficient quantity and you didn't mind killing every bird and bat in britain and ...and..and

COULD is the let out word to show that their handwavey nonsense gives the correct woke impression without having a shred of relevance to the real world

[The Natural Philosopher]

All green articles are political propaganda, not sound realistic engineering

[The Natural Philosopher]

The issue is simple. All renewable solutions end up massively more complex, massively more vulnerable, massively more damaging to the environment and massively more costly than simply building shit loads of nukes.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Pumped storage is good to have, whatever else is on the grid - Dinorwig allegedly 'saved one nuclear power station'. But even if every suitable site was converted, it wouldn't keep the grid up more than 10 minutes or so. Its ok for adding a little to the 'peak hour' around 6pm, but it cant store enough to cope with no wind for a day

[The Natural Philosopher]

Bless. Pancho my old china, they dont give a *FUCK* whether it works or not. There are firtunes to be made out of it, and like the spoilt brats they are they assume someone somehow will make it all come right. Their only concern is winning the next election and giving as little away to the public to do it, as they can

The fact is that Rolls Royce at least are pushing ahead with ceritifications anyway.

That will go down like a cup of cold sick with the woke lunatics

[Animal]

The one I mentioned that runs most of the time is a 1m wide tiddler, rooftop of 1 storey. I reckon there's no generator in it, just the blades & bearings.

[Pancho]

Isn't that what I was saying?

Yes, it might work. Wind might work economically. Hydrogen storage might be possible. Current evidence, current science, shows building many big nuclear power stations should be the most economical, most efficient. However, it ties you in for 50-60 years. Ties you in for 50-60 years, but even within a decade, the decision can be made to look poor when a new better technology comes along.

My point is, we have to accept that, should have accepted it decades ago. The important thing is to make a decision, now! A bad decision is better than no decision.

That came out wrong, I meant traditional nuclear power stations :-).

[#Paul]

But how about, after a little engineering, using the Lake district? :-)

#Paul

[Spike]

That would bring an end to the constant whining by cyclists that there’s too much vehicle traffic from visitors, so perhaps it’s not a bad idea…

[Vir Campestris]

Ah good, you read it.

That report

is apparently a headline grabber / clickbait, and it links to

... which much to my surprise makes much the same claims. "Apparent hurdles to the rapid scaling of renewables, including public perception, energy storage and grid infrastructure, can be overcome with proactive planning and appropriate support."

It then goes on to say

"Storage: costs continue to fall and these trends look set to continue over the coming decades. For example, lithium-ion batteries declined in cost by 79% between 2008 and 2022.[10] [11] A recent report on energy storage from the Royal Society[12] provides useful guidance and examines a wide variety of ways to store surplus electricity— including green hydrogen, advanced compressed air energy storage, ammonia, and heat"

The Royal Society link is

69 pages. Ah well, I have an hour....

Among other things it says

"Wind supply can vary over time scales of decades and tens of TWhs of very long-duration storage will be needed. The scale is over 1000 times that currently provided by pumped hydro in the UK, and far more than could conceivably be provided by conventional batteries."

"Meeting the need for long-duration storage will require very low cost per unit energy stored. In GB, the leading candidate is storage of hydrogen in solution-mined salt caverns, for which GB has a more than adequate potential, albeit not widely distributed. The fall-back option, which would be significantly more expensive, is ammonia"

No batteries I notice. They also think nuclear will be too expensive, and carbon capture with natural gas generators will leak both CO2 and methane.

They think the 2050 price if we build loads of caves full of hydrogen will be about £52 to £92 per MWh; the price they quote for nuclear is £66-99 per MWh, and comment that SMR may be cheaper.

It's a very interesting and to me seems quite sensible. As I'd expect from the RS.

One thing you don't normally hear from the advocate of Wind and Solar is

"longer periods of scarce wind and solar supply, which can last up to two weeks."

I'm not going to read it all now, but I've saved it for later.

Andy

[Tim Streater]

Well it wasn't very long, was it.

Gosh, down by a factor 4, eh! So our battery backup is down to £250,000,000,000.00. A veritable snip! Just another factor of 25 to go and we have a reasonable price.

It may have examined them but none sounds like a magic bullet.

It's all low-energy-density stuff. Just what you don't want.

The point about nuclear is that it is *reliable*.

The extra would be worth it.

First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your oppressors. - George Orwell