It's certainly worked pretty well for China over the past couple of decades.
We need better politicians, not muddle-heads like Bojo or
Incompetent is the wrong word, no way to judge it. He's only ever been a councillor or an MP, so he has never actually had to run anything bigger than an office.
It's a projection. They can't tell exactly how much the wind is going to blow or the load is going to rise or fall for the coming hours. But they can model, based on weather forecasts and past data. Any projection has error bars.
It's not perfect, but perfect is the enemy of the 'good enough'. I don't think anyone is going to be very bothered whether it's 264 or 262 gCO2/kWh, but that's different from 500 or 50.
So can you put order of magnitude numbers on all those things you mention? When you add those up, what do the error bars look like? Just back of the envelope numbers, in the vein of withouthotair.com?
Obviously, any calculation has second and third order effects. We need to know if they'll make a 50%, 5%, 0.5%, 0.05%, 0.005% difference. If the latter, they're negligible enough to ignore (unless there are thousands of factors of that order that might add up).
If you just moan that it's all so complicated, that's just intentionally muddling the issue.
Since we're measuring actual output, the capacity factor is irrelevant to this calculation. Doesn't matter how many turbines there are, the power that comes out is all that counts.
(Obviously there's a construction cost, which we can amortise across the lifetime output of the turbine - a random US cite[1] said 5-6 months energy payback time)
Theo
[1]
Very well put.
The real problem is the electors:
?These are just people of the land, the common clay of the West. You know ? morons.?
Is there a link to your critique? Ta.
Chris Hogg snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net wrote
In reality they don't.
Hardly anyone with any sense wants to be a politician.
not muddle-heads like Bojo or
Yes. As I say Germany with massive renewables is the most carbon intensive nation in Europe AND it has more windmills than anyone else. That bears out the Latvian study that calculated that co generating with coal would in fact *increase* emissions.
It takes a LOT of time and coal to get a coal powerstation up to speed.
The Irish study is broadly relevant, so co firing with gas *halves* the carbon gains of the windmills,
withouthotair is a lot better than back of envelope. the site mentioned is far far worse.
I am sorry if you find the truth is 'just muddling the issue'
The point is this.
Neither I nor anyone else sitting in an armchair has the access to data to actually determine whether or not windmills and solar panels result in any meaningful emissions reductions overall, or not.
A study dine by the Latvian engineer said that between 70% and 110% of all emissions reductions would be lost - again the actual loss is very dependent on how the wind behaves.
The Irish study, against averagely decent CCGT gas turbine/steam average out at about 50% of the carbon gains directly lost through having to operate CCGT kit in sub optimal regimes. On and off all the time. That was actual data.
Its like the car adverts. They tell you your shiny new Audi will do 56 mpg. You run it a year and you get 31mpg. On summer holidays, it does
40, in snow around town going to te supermarket in winter it does 25.Next year the weather is different you are locked down and you get 29mpg
But we can get a little insight into te shape of te curces
Leyts take a simple situation and start to do some simple sums, accurate sums, not back of te envleope ones. We have a gigawatt of windmills and a gigawatt gas power station.
We know that the capacity factor of the windmills is 30%, so we should burn 70% of the gas if we add windmills for the same GW of power. This is MR Artstudent's calculation.
Ther CCGT is running normally at 57% efficiency or would be if there was no windmills involved, but as a result of being in stop start mode, its actual overall efficiency drops to only 42%.
So without windmills it burns 1GW/.57 = 1.754GW of gas. With windmills it burns 0.7GW/.42 = 1.6666GW of gas.
So the 300MW average of wind power from 1GW of windmills results in a carbon reduction equivalent to just 87MW If the power station efficiency actually starts to drop below about 40% on account of having to balance wind, all the wind gains are gone. The windmills have saved nothing.
Are you really unaware of the way capacity factor is used to justify windmills?
'will power 3500 homes' Nope. make that 1800 homes. 'will reduce emissions by x million tonnes' No about 0.2x million tonnnes
I wasn't saying that crap capacity factors affect how much electricity is recorded on gridwatch and BM reports, I was saying that renewable UK and the Dukes reports do not use the actual output, they use the nameplate value of installed windfarms multiplied by e.g. 40%. They are in short lying about the generation and carbon savings of wind power every year.
Just like your sites, It's all MODELS. Gridwatch is DATA. That's why I built it. to answer questions models could not, like "how true is it that the 'wind is always blowing somewhere'".
The answer is that for all practical purposes it is, like almost very other site sponsored by climate change believers and renewable advocates, more or less total lies.
No, the electors are quite sharp. Its is the political class who are morons. They never had a proper job in their lives and they know nothing except how to bullshit...
The problem is how to replace them with competent people
I mean look at Angela Rayner, you couldn't trusts her to even be in charge of a condom.
ICBA to look for links, but I recently read an article that quoted the targets and outcomes of some of the recent plans, which were impressive. States can perhaps cover up some of their internal stuff like grain production, but power station construction and operation can't really be faked these days.
I'm not sure how they named them, but I am pretty sure the French did have declared nuclear plans post 1973. And what's wrong with long-term (10 year or more) planning anyway. We've all lived through the sort of short-termism that is the norm here in the west.
The Chinese are hedging their bets on nuclear technology, which is probably very wise. While they have the two famous/infamous EPRs (which of course they built much faster than Finland and France), they are also building their own-brand semi-advanced PWR (Hualong 1), plus AP1000s, some new VVERs, a new SMR, and a big fast reactor. A small pebble bed HTR has just gone critical. At this rate, by mid-century, they will be the world's dominant industrial economy in all technologies.
Better learn to live with the idea down under. They could be very good trading partners.
Following the advice of media experts seems to be a (short term) recipe for success.
Try this
An economy that size can afford to sink millions into separate developments and then pick the winner.
Its a luxury Britain never could afford. One had high hopes of the EU, but that turned out to be an exercise in picking the most profitable losers.
Why would they bother to be partners when they can simply walk in and take over
It needs updating - there is yet another issue that hadn't occurred to me back then - frequency stability.
They cant. Afghanistan proves that even the USA can't do that.
Afghans don't sit around in trendy cafes sipping soy lattes.
Plenty of them do. And plenty of ours don?t.
But they are doing renewables too, I wonder why? And not just for the export market.
But balance of payments isn't the parameter that matters. The whole point about trade is that both sides benefit.
Indeed. Diversification is always a good investment strategy.
Not on that scale of course. But we could have pursued a dual strategy. Something relatively well proven as base load replacement for existing plant, say ABWR or AP1000 (it doesn't much matter what). Should have started that at least ten years ago, of course with Gen III plant. EPR doesn't qualify. In parallel build a production line for SMR, we can prototype some locally for grid reinforcement, and hopefully recover some of the costs by export sales.
Worked for Airbus, politics/pride was always going to get in the way for nuclear.
Because invasion imposes many other dead-weight costs?
Is 'spike' TURnip in disguise ?
Pity about the way the chinese muslims are being treated, or the Hong Kong folks, or the tennis player, or indeed anyone who has an opinion that differs from the Chinese Communist Party.
Ditto Putins Russia
Guess what. Democracies don't necessarily treat minorities well either.
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.