OT - More on generation (sigh) but what is the alternative to coal?

formatting link
"Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because six of Britain's coal stations must close by the end of 2015 under European rules. However, it now appears that half of these stations, representing 8pc of Britain's capacity, are likely to shut early because they will have been burning fuel for too many hours - more than 20,000 in total since 2008.

New Government estimates show Cockenzie, owned by Scottish Power, is likely to have to close completely by April. Kingsnorth, owned by E.ON, is on track to have to shut by March 2013. Meanwhile, Tilbury, which is being converted into a biomass station by RWE, may have to go by July 2013 unless it can convince the European Union (EU) its new fuel is cleaner.

Experts believe more wind on the grid will help to offset the loss of power from coal. On Thursday, it emerged that 10pc of the UK's electricity came from wind for the first time this quarter. However, Simon Cowdroy, of WSP Future Energy, said: "Although the figures show a rise in renewable generation, this may not be enough to prevent a shortfall in UK capacity."

Biomass could replace coal in some power stations. However, a Government announcement on whether biomass will get higher subsidies has been delayed this summer.

In recent weeks, a new warning has come from the EU's European Environment Agency that bioenergy may be no more green than fossil fuels. "

I started out trying to find where the coal for the UK power stations came from.

formatting link
around 50% comes from abroad.

Now I am a bit doubtful about the above statement that 10% of UK energy came from wind, as Gridwatch isn't showing anywhere near that. If wind peaks at arounf 1GW then at 10% that would be a maximum demand of

10GW. Current (!) demand is between 50 and 60GW. The yearly graphs show that demand hasn't been below 30GW since June. Perhaps there were a few seconds on windy summer night when the wind output just touched the 10%? Even that seems very unlikely.

All of which leaves me with the depressing thought that if they are closing coal fired power stations, not building new Carbon Capture ones, not building nukes, and most of our gas will be coming from other countries we are going to be in deep shit relatively soon.

Oh, and

formatting link
"The UK's "dash for gas" will be halted by the government because if unchecked it would break legally binding targets for carbon dioxide emissions, Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, said on Monday evening.

"We will not consent so much gas plant so as to endanger our carbon dioxide goals," he told a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats party conference in Birmingham.

The number of gas-fuelled power plants is increasing rapidly because they are fast and cheap to build compared with alternatives. They also create about half the carbon emissions of coal-powered plants and have been seen as a "transition fuel", helping smooth the path to zero-carbon electricity.

Barry Neville, director of public affairs at Centrica, which owns British Gas, said: "Gas is a critical part of the fuel mix, it's a transition fuel. At this moment in time it is crucial to the UK, as is nuclear and as are renewables.

But climate change campaigners have warned that too much gas capacity is being built, meaning either the carbon budgets intended to help tackle global warming would be broken, or the gas plants would be left as stranded assets.

"The secretary of state's statement is a welcome recognition by the government that there are constraints on the deployment of gas as a climate-effective solution to our future energy needs," said David Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be looking at the deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30% by 2020, at increasing rates during the 2020s.""

Oh, and what are renewables? One of the claims above is that biomass is no more green than fossil fuels. That probably leaves hydro, solar and wind. The prospect of over 30% of the UK power demand coming reliably from hydro, solar and wind is not looking good, especially on the still winter nights.

Bottom line - if we want to be self sufficient in power generation what alternatives are there to nuclear (and even then I assume we need the fissionables from abroad)?

Cheers

Dave R

Reply to
David WE Roberts
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

formatting link

select avg(wind/demand) from day;

+--------------------+ | avg(wind/demand) | +--------------------+ | 0.0359833250896992 | +--------------------+ 1 row in set (0.20 sec)

mysql>

So winds average contribution has been a proper average...

select avg(wind)/avg(demand) from day;

+-----------------------+ | avg(wind)/avg(demand) | +-----------------------+ | 0.0351552456519308 | +-----------------------+ 1 row in set (0.01 sec)

make that 3.5%!!

Too long to post, but there are not a few samples in the database where wind power exceeded 10% of demand for an hour or two. A warm wet windy night is the best time to see this.

Yup.

Chris Huhne is not teh energy and climate change secretary any more.

Utter bollocks. we HAVE to add gas to complement wind power. The two are inseparable.

The number of gas plants being CLOSED is increasing, because wind is more profitable and gas is very expensive, and the more wind you have the less hours the gas plant runs to recoup its capital investment.

Actually renewables are not crucial for anything..

Yep teh greens want to close down the wopodburner thats just got going at Tilbury and is contributing half a a gigawatt.

Despite massive investment, Germany has utterly failed to generate any solar power after dark. But we are reliably informed that better technology and more investment will solve this minor problem.

There are none at all.

We are not self sufficient in energy and we cannot ever be.

However a program of fast breeder reactors making more nuclear fuel out of anything remotely fissile might make us so. As can fracking in the short term - or even opening new coal mines..open cast scraping of poor grade coal is relatively cheap, and we can burn brown coal as well as any German.

Electricity is a sideshow though. The bigger problem is how to run the transport system without petrol and diesel.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

It's bollocks, obvious to anyone who looks at the instananeosu figures a few times - but TNP had hard data in his post anyway.

Let bring on the blackouts. I hope London goes out first. Few hours here and there. I have a feeling that the nuclear expansion programme will get doubled and completed in half the time then...

Reply to
Tim Watts

Oh dear, the Large Combustion Plant Directive kicks us in the nuts. What a surprise. Time we told Europe to f*ck off.

If that is the case, let those that wish to be supplied from wind, be supplied by wind and nothing else. Give them smart meters and when the wind doesn't blow, their light go out, their freezer defrosts and they won't be able to watch the telly.

In their dreams

The shortfall has come because no one wants to invest long term in any sustainable, reliable generation like nukes. Wind and solar make lots of money fast but they do f*ck all except divert money from where it is really needed. 10,000 wind turbines.... or a dozen nukes that will reliably produce power for three or four decades, every day whatever the weather?

It's no good pissing about with this. We don't have the land to grow the crop. Shipping biomass in from the USA like they are doing at Tilbury isn't very green is it?

No shit sherlock.

Quite easily. You only need to see how much is produced in the UK. "1.7 million tonnes of coal a year in 2009" claimed by UK coal, the UK's largest producer. Drax burns around 8 million tonnes a year, 4GW max output, load factor is in the mid 80%

So , finger in the air guess, that 1.7 million tonnes is roughly equivalent to around 1GW of coal generation, given there are around

26GW of coal plant, that is less than 4% coming from local sources. Thatcher's legacy. She must be so proud of that. Bitch.

We are. We should have been building new nukes at least three years ago. Building. Not thinking about it, I mean pouring concrete, erecting steelwork, fabricating the reactor vessel. Securing our energy supply within our own borders. Bugger the public enquiries. If anyone complains shoot them. Or drop them, without a parachute, out the back of Hercules over the Atlantic. No ifs, no buts. Complain and you die. If you go to a lawyer, they also get the same treatment.

They were saying that in the early 90's All that has happened since is gas, more gas and even more gas because they are dirt cheap to build and return on capital is rapid. The 'benefits' of gas generation has meant that no one is prepared to invest an anything but gas ...until wind and solar came along with their cushy handouts.

The whole market is a mess. Caused by the free market. Ultimately caused by that evil bitch Thatcher who hated coal so much she would do anything, even hand the country over to the clutches of the gas man in Russia as long as she could crush them.

You bet it is crucial now. But we managed before 1990 without gas for power generation.

Have they? I can't recall anything being said, and if it did it would only be so they could promote solar or wind.

David Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF UK. "The government should be looking at the deployment of renewables, that already must be at 30% by 2020, at increasing rates during the 2020s.""

WWF?

What the f*ck has it got to do with them. Lets start burning Pandas, WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of The Earth Supporters.

1) Massively improving energy efficiency of UK housing stock and industry, what little is left of it would be a start. 2) Immediately removing all incentives for solar and wind. No more fit payments. If they try and take it to court then get the army to use the solar panels for firing practice and use shaped charges on the wind turbines so we can improve the view of the countryside. 3) No more new gas generation

4) Gas generation of existing plant to be capped

5) Stick two fingers up at Europe regarding emissions and keep burning coal

6) Coal mining

7) Underground coal gasification

8) Multiple nukes in every major city providing electricity and heat for homes and industry

But it ain't going to happen. The lights will go out for two reasons:

People will eventually say no more and we will have hundreds of thousands bypassing meters.

Those 'investing' in generation plant will not want to invest for the long term when they can get much bigger returns elsewhere in the world

Yes we are in the shit. But don't forget who started all this off. Thatcher and her hatred of coal, leading to electricity privatisation, the dash for gas and this mess. Thatcher's legacy will haunt this country for decades.

Reply to
The Other Mike

I agree with much that you say, but with respect it is *not* caused by the free market, but by IDIOTS MUCKING ABOUT WITH IT.

If a simple carbon tax had been introduced twenty years ago, plus some sort of committment to stability, we would have been building nuclear power stations for years.

Reply to
Newshound

formatting link
> "Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because

formatting link
> suggests around 50% comes from abroad.

The real problem is rapid population growth, which is conveniently ignored. Add to that, the natural demand of the Third World to access the latest technology and perhaps war is now the only answer. Immigration and financing people to have an unlimited number of children is fuelling both the power and the housing problem but politicians haven't the balls to grasp the nettle on either front.

Andy C

Reply to
Andy Cap

On 10/02/2012 10:30, David WE Roberts wrote: ...

Like most people, you seem to forget about tidal flow generation (not tidal barrier), which I think might actually be a viable technology, unlike solar and wind power. Hydro is good, if you have the places to build it, which Britain is fairly short of. I think nuclear is our best bet, but it should include some fast consumer reactors, which would reduce nuclear waste from around 95%, much of it high level waste, to around 1%, mostly low level, but I'll bet it won't.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
Nightjar

would do

A bit of a rant but basically sound. And yes a level palying field free market wouldn't have millions if not billions spent of wind mills and useless PV as they would not be economic to build.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

It is my favourite (to the extent that I have one) but my niece in the renewables business says that, like all these solutions, you may get to supply 5 to 10% of requirement if you're lucky.

I think TNP is right that just because its reliably intermittent, and just because the tides' timetable varies round the coast, that doesn't really help. You're having to over-provision again.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Weasel words "will help". Riding a bicycle with a dynamo attached "will help".

For the best part of a couple of weeks wind has struggled to get above 1GW. Coal on the other hand hasn't fallen below 20GW and for the last few days is running at nearly 25GW 24/7.

Nov Dec Jan where quite windy, there might be an average of 2GW from wind. Demand was somewhere between 30 and 40GW. TNP would need to number crunch. I also suspect that it's not 10% of demand but 10% of total energy over the period.

I don't quite follow this. The carbon released from biomass isn't fossil carbon (like coal, oil and gas) but was taken from the atmosphere within the last 100 years or so. It will be absorbed by the growning of more biomass to fuel the power station over the next years. It's a carbon cycle it's not releaseing previously stored carbon to the atmosphere. Yes, there will be fossil fuels used in processing and transport but nothing like that released by the burning of the biomass.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

x

Somewhere between the mid 1970's we seem to have lost the plot with the common market. It was supposed to be about reducing taxes not telling us how we should live.

I doubt anyone would have voted us in had we not been such sheep.

Government of the people for the people only works if the people are given bullets by the politicians for the politicians. I can't see that happening either.

What we really need is a jolly good dose of rebellion and a few politicals stretching from lamp posts by their ankles until dead.

Make that more than a few and start with EuroMPs. The scum.

Reply to
Weatherlawyer

Since when was open cast mining cheap? You can't put the overburden back. You can just rearrange the spoil. Burying nuclear waste is less toxic than that.

An ex opencast wasteland is an eyesore for centuries.

Reply to
Weatherlawyer

I have a feeling that protesters to that will be a lot more violent and a lot better organised than they were in the good old days.

They may have banned guns in this country but they haven't banned the people willing to use them.

Reply to
Weatherlawyer

ix

Much as I still detest the inane smiling bitch, I can't blame her for not wanting to subsidise pneumoconiosis indefinitely.

It was all that bastard Arthur Scargill's fault for getting the miners compensation. If it hadn't been for him she would have let them all die. Yea unto the tenth generation.

Reply to
Weatherlawyer

That's surface mining. The 2011 report claims total production FY 2010 was 7.2 million tonnes, first half FY2011 was 4.1million. Still only just about enough for Drax, though...

-- Mike

Reply to
docholliday

formatting link
> "Experts have long warned of the potential for power shortages because six

formatting link
> suggests around 50% comes from abroad.

Er no. Caused by government interference in a free market, especially with respect to renewable energy and nuclear power.

Ultimately

Not really at all. Coal was uneconomic from (most) UK mines.

Sounds like a plan to me. However there isn't much energy in em. I did the calculations.

Cant massively improve much of it - its as good as it gets already. And domestic energy - heat - is actually quite a low part of the overall energy footprint. Probably less than 10%.

Well you cant renege on legal contracts - unless you are Ms Merkel of course.

Always need some, but there probably is enough already..

Eseentially it is, as gas is more expensive.

Agreed, at least till all teh old pnat is BER.

Open cast only.

Wxepensive and dangerous IMHO.

Dont bneed multiple in every - we can cope with just about 30-40 nukes countrywide. Mind you there are some mini-nukes that could do municipal demand..

The biggest problem is that no one has grasped the nuclear nettle at government level. There is no guarantee of operating license lengths, or the conditions that will be attached, there is no guarantee on what insurance levy they will be forced to pay, or what tax will be on them to pay for nuclear fuel reprocessing and waste disposal. There is no decision on Sellafield and the huge amounts of potential fuel stockpiled there.

No, it didnt start there. It stared with the CND and greenpeace..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Agree with all of that except tidal flow, which is just another frigging wind turbine, only this time buried where its (a) bound to go wrong and (b) guaranteed to be fearfully expensive to fix.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Exactly so. IF there is a deep social issue then you use the taxes and regulation to either discourage or ban the offending element.

Taxing all carbon fuels is a simple way to encourage the development of non carbon fuels.

Subsidising wind is a way to make people build wind whether it reduces carbon or not.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

At least ONE person understands that reliability is not the issue: the issue is energy density and capacity factor.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.